IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


■ii|2i   US 
■tt  lii   12.2 


1L25IU 


|L25 


1I& 

U4 


^/ 


>^ 


V 


Photografiiic 

ScHioes 

Garporation 


4S^A 


^-    -<> 


^. 


as  wht  main  strut 

VflUTIR,N.Y.  I4SM 
(716)t72-4S03 


4^ 


v\ 


MM 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHIVi/ICIVIH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Inatituta  for  Historical  MIcroraproductions  /  instltut  Canadian  da  microraproductions  historiquaa 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notas  tachniquaa  at  bibliographiquaa 


Tf 
to 


Tha  Inatituta  haa  attamptad  to  obtain  tha  baat 
original  copy  avaiiabia  for  filming.  Faaturaa  of  thia 
copy  which  may  ba  bibliographicaiiy  uniqua, 
which  may  altar  any  of  tha  imagaa  in  tha 
raproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
tha  uaual  method  of  filming,  are  chaclcflfd  below. 


D 


D 


n 


D 


0 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I     I   Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  endommagte 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurte  at/ou  pelliculte 


I     I   Cover  title  missing/ 


Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps/ 

Cartes  gAographiquea  en  couleur 

Coloured  inic  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


I     I   Coloured  plataa  and/or  illuatrationa/ 


Planchaa  at/ou  illuatrationa  an  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
RallA  avac  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  causa  shadowa  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  re  liure  serrte  peut  cauaar  da  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
diatortion  la  long  da  la  marge  int^rieure 

Blank  leavaa  added  during  reatoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  aa  peut  que  certainaa  pagaa  blanches  aJoutAaa 
lore  d'una  reatauration  apparaiaaant  dans  la  taxte, 
mala,  ioraqua  cela  Atait  poaaibia,  cea  pagaa  n'ont 
paa  «t«  filmtes. 


Additional  commenta:/ 
Commentairea  supplAmantairaa: 


Various  pagiiigs. 


L'Inatitut  a  microfilm^  la  mailleur  exemplaira 
qu'il  lui  a  tt6  possible  de  aa  procurer.  Lea  dAtaila 
da  cat  exemplaira  qui  sont  paut-Atre  uniquea  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  m^thoda  normala  de  filmaga 
aont  indiquAa  ci-daaaoua. 


I     I  Coloured  pagaa/ 


D 


Pagaa  da  couleur 

Pagaa  damaged/ 
Pagaa  endommagtea 


□   Pagaa  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pagaa  restaurAea  at/ou  pellicuMes 

0   Pagaa  discoloured,  atainad  or  foxed/ 
Pagaa  dteolorAas,  tachettea  ou  piqu6aa 

□   Pagaa  detached/ 
Pagaa  d^tachtes 

Showthrouglv 
Tranaparance 

Quality  of  prir 

Qualit^  in^gaia  da  rimprassion 

Includes  supplementary  matarii 
Comprend  du  material  auppMmantaira 

Only  edition  available/ 
Saula  MItion  diaponibia 


FTI   Showthrough/ 

I     I ,  Quality  of  print  variaa/ 

I     I   Includaa  supplementary  material/ 

r~n    Only  edition  available/ 


Pagaa  wholly  or  partially  obacurad  by  errata 
slips,  tissuea,  etc.,  have  been  rafilmad  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Lea  pagaa  totalament  ou  partiallement 
obscurcies  par  un  feulllet  d'errata,  una  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  At*  filmAea  A  nouveau  da  fapon  A 
obtanir  la  maillaure  image  poaaibia. 


Tl 
po 
of 
fil 


Or 
ba 
th 
sit 
ot 
fir 
si( 
or 


Th 
sh 
Til 
wl 

Ml 
dif 
em 
bet 
rigl 
rec; 
ma 


Thia  item  la  filmed  at  tha  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ca  document  eat  film*  au  taux  da  reduction  indiquA  ci-daaaoua. 


10X 

14X 

18X 

22X 

2BX 

30X 

v' 

12X 

1SX 

20X 

a4x 

2BX 

32X 

The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

Univanity  of  Windier 
Law  Library 


L'exemplaire  film*  fut  reproduit  grAce  A  la 
gAnirosit*  de: 

Univanity  of  Windsor 
Law  Library 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Original  copies  in  printed  papsr  covers  ere  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  ^»>  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  y  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 

ISAaps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method  : 


Les  images  suivantes  ont  At*  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  at 
de  la  nettet*  de  l'exemplaire  film*,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmege. 

Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimte  sent  filmte  en  commenpant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
derniAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'iilustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  salon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sent  filmte  en  commenpant  par  la 
premiere  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'iilustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaftra  sur  la 
derniire  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbols  -^^  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbols  ▼  signifie  "FIN". 

Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  Atre 
filmte  A  des  taux  de  reduction  diff«rents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  Atre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clichA,  11  est  filmA  A  partir 
de  I'angle  supArieur  gauche,  de  geuche  A  droite, 
et  de  heut  en  bes,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'imageb  nAcesssire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mAthode. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

EVIDENCE 


VOR 


THE  UNITED  STATES 


IN  THE  MATTBR  OF  THE  CLAIM  OP  THK 


HUDSON'S  BAY  COMPANY, 


PRNDTNG  BEFORE  THR 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION. 


FOK    THE 


FINAL  SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  CLAIMS 


OF    THE 


HUDSON'S  BAY  AND  PUGEfS  SOUND  AQBICULMAL  C0IPANIK8. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C. : 

VOILL  *  WITHKROW,  PRINTERS  AND  aTBBBOTYPBM. 

1867. 


INDEX  TO  WITNESSES. 


....  ,    Pauk. 

Arlams,  Tlioinas 112 

AMon,  J.  Madison 551 

Allen,  Edwar.l  Tay 305 

Alvord,  Benjamin 350 

Atkinson,  Robert  J 181 

AugurC.C. 101 

Barnes,  Tosepli  K 09 

fain,  Andrew  J 222 

Davidson,  rjeorge 305 

Powell,  Benjamin 357 

^iardner,  Alexander , 319 

Gardner,  diaries  T 320 

riardner,  (leorge  Clinton 191,  521 

(lililis,  Oeorge 3;;9 

flil.son,  William 371 

(lilisnn,  William  Huff , 1()5 

flilpin.  William .330 

fi ranger,  (iordon , 37S 

Grant,  Ulysses  H ]i] 

Ifardie,  Tames  A 10(> 

Harrison,  Alexander  M 312 

Howard,  W.  A (JO 

Hudson,  Francis , 339 

Huntington 145 

Ingalls,  Kufus 1,  521 

MacFeely,  Robert ILS 

McKeever,  Chaunoey 77 

McMurtrie,  William  B 371 

Moses,  Simpson  P. 327 

Nelson,  Tiiomas 8G 

Nesniith,  James  W 23 

Noble,  John  F 394 

Teale,  Titian  R 344 

rieasonton,  Alfred 134 

Reno,  Marcus  A 208 

.Slieridan,  Philip  H 2H« 

Shoemaker,  George  W 251 

Simpson,  George  B 2t)0 


IV. 


INDEX  TO    WITNESSES. 


•  Paob. 

Smitli.  Andrew  J 83 

Steinberger,  Justus 50 

Suckley,  George 540 

Swan,  James  G 342 

Terry,  William  J 390 

Thompson,  Lewis  S 217 

Vinton,  David  H .' 129 

Wagner,  Charles  B.. 50 

Wilkes,  Charlea 274 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION 

HUDSON'S  BAY  AND  PUGET'S  SOUND  AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES'  CLAIMS. 


In  (he  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson^ s  Bay  Company  vs. 
the   United  States  of  America. 

Depositions  of  witnesses  sworn  and  examined  in  the  city  of 
Washington,  District  of  Columbia,  by  virtue  of  an  agree- 
ment between  Eben  F.  Stone,  Agent  and  Attorney  for 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  Edward  Lander,  Agent 
and  Attorney  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  before  me, 
Nicholas  Callan,  a  Notary  Public  in  and  for  the  county 
of  Washington,  and  District  of  Columbia,  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States. 

Testimony  of  Rufus  Ingalls. 


Brevet  Major  General  Rufus  Ingalh,  United  States  Volunteers^ 
being  duly  sworn  according  to  law,  says: 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  age,  place  of  residence,  and 
occupation? 

Ans. — Rufus  Ingalls ;  forty-five  yeafs  of  age  ;  occupation 
that  of  brevet  major  general  United  States  Volunteers,  quar- 
termaster in  regular  service;  place  of  residence  Washington 
city.  District  of  Columbia. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  ever  resided  in  Washington  Territory; 
if  yea,  when  and  where,  for  how  long  a  period,  and  what  was 
your  employment? 

Ans. — I  went  to  Fort  Vancouver  in  May,  1849,  and  was 
Chief  Quartermaster  of  that  military  department  until  1852. 
I  was  absent  until  March,  1856,  and  was  from  that  period  the 
principal  quartermaster  until  1860.  ' 

Int.  3. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  post  at  Vancouver 


li 


and  the  land  adjoining,  Mliich  is  claimed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  ? 

A)i8. — I  am. 

Int.  4. — Please  to  examine  the  map,  hero  produced,  and 
state  whether  it  is,  in  your  judgment,  a  correct  delineation  of 
the  post  at  Vancouver  and  of  the  country  adjoining. 

Ans. — It  appears  to  be. 

I7it.  5. — Please  to  describe,  as  particularly  as  you  can,  by 
reference  to  said  map  or  otherwise,  the  extent  of  the  claim  of 
the  said  Company,  at  said  post,  giving  the  limits  thereof,  ter- 
ritorially, as  nearly  as  you  can,  as  you  understand  them. 

(Objecte<l  to  in  this  form,  so  far  as  the  witness'  personal 
knowledge  from  the  time  of  his  arrival  at  Fort  Vancouver.) 

Ans. — It  has  never  come  before  me  officially,  and  of  course 
I  can  only  answer  from  what  I  learned  by  conversation.  In 
the  fall  of  1849,  General  Persifer  F.  Smith,  who  commanded 
the  Department  of  the  Pacific,  was  at  Fort  Vancouver.  It 
was  a  matter  of  complaint  by  Governor  Ogden,  Chief  Factor 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  to  General  Smith,  that  his 
lands  were  being  squatted  upon  by  the  settlers,  and  in  that 
way  I  came  to  know  about  their  claims.  The  object  was  to 
get  protection  from  the  military  authorities.  From  his  rep- 
resentation, the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  claimed  a  region  of 
country  embracing  some  twenty-five  miles  upon  the  Columl  ia 
river,  begining  above  what  was  known  as  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company's  Saw  Mills,  and  extending  down  to  or  nearly  to  the 
Cathlapootl  river,  and  some  eight  or  ten  miles  inland. 

Int.  6. — How  much  of  this  claim,  as  set  up  by  Governor 
Ogden,  if  any,  was  in  fact  enclosed  or  occupied  by  the  said 
Company  while  you  were  there.  Please  to  answer  this  as  par- 
ticularly as  you  can,  by  reference  to  the  map  or  otherwise. 

Ans. — There  was  a  very  small  portion  of  the  whole  claim 
actually  enclosed.  There  was  a  large  enclosure  on  the  Mill 
Plain,  of  what  extent  I  don't  now  know.  There  were  quite 
extensive  enclosures  in  and  about  Fort  Vancouver,  and  also 
upon  the  Lower  Plain  about  Vancouver  Lake.  There  were 
enclosures  also  upon  what  is  called  the  Fourth  Plain.  With 
regard  to  the  whole  claim,  the  amount  enclosed  was  very 


I 


i 


8 


small.  Tlic  proportion  of  the  whole  really  occupied  and  used 
was  small.  A  large  proportion  of  the  whole  was  shortly  after 
occupied  and  held  by  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

Int.  7. — What  sort  of  occupation,  if  any,  did  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  have  of  that  post  of  their  asserted  claim  which 
was  not  enclosed  ? 

Ann. — The  same  that  any  other  company  or  people  might 
have  had  or  did  have;  not  exclusive  control. 

Int.  8. — Does  the  description  which  you  have  given  of  the 
nature  of  the  occupation  of  the  lands  claimed  by  the  Company 
at  Vancouver  apply  to  the  condition  of  the  claim  subsequent 
to  the  settlement  of  the  land  by  settlers;  if  not,  to  what  does 
it  apply? 

Ans. — No;  it  does  not.  It  applies  more  particularly  to 
the  time  when  I  arrived  there,  in  1848,  although  there  were 
quite  a  number  of  people  settled  within  the  limits  of  the  claim 
at  that  time. 

Int.  9. — What  were  the  condition  and  character  of  the  claim 
of  the  Company  at  this  post  in  18GC? 
J|  Ans. — When  I  left  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  with- 

drawn from  the  Territory.  The  lands  which  the  Company 
claimed  were  in  occupation  by  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  and  the  military  authorities. 

Int.  10. — Did  any  change  take  place  in  the  occupation  of 
the  Company  at  this  post  while  you  were  there,  in  respect  to 
the  extent  of  the  land  actually  occupied  by  them  previous  to 
their  abandonment  of  this  post?  If  yea,  please  to  describe  the 
same  particularly. 

Ans. — When  I  arrived  there,  in  1849,  the  Company  was  in 
occupation  of  the  enclosures,  &c.,  described  in  a  former  answer. 
They  were  gradually  absorbed  by  increasing  settlements, 
until  at  last  the  occupation  was  reduced  very  nearly  to  the 
stockade,  when  the  Company  retired. 

Int.  11. — What  was  the  condition  of  the  buildings  and  im- 
provements at  this  post  belonging  to  the  Company  when  you 
left,  in  18G0? 

Ans. — Very  dilapidated. 

Int.  12. — Can  you  enumerate  and  describe  the  buildings 


ii 


which  belonged  to  the  Company  at  this  post,  when  you  left,  in 
1800?     If  yea,  please  to  do  so  as  nearly  as  you  can. 

Ans, — There  were  three  large  store-houses  still  standing; 
the  office  attii  the  Governor's  house;  the  Indian  store-hotise; 
the  blacksmith  shop  and  the  Bachelor's  Row,  the  place  where 
the  clerks  resided,  and  some  other  buildings;  I  don't  know 
that  I  ca*.  state  them  exactly.  All  of  them  were  in  a  worn- 
out  condition,  so  much  so  that  the  Government  did  not  see  fit 
to  occupy  any  of  them  at  that  time.  One  of  the  large  store- 
houses I  had  already  pulled  down,  and  was  proceeding  to  take 
down  most,  if  not  all,  and  to  clear  the  grounds;  but  the  work 
was  suspended  by  order  of  Colonel  Wright,  who  succeeded 
General  Ilarncy.  I  have  named  the  important  buildings,  but 
don't  undertake  to  name  them  all. 

Int.  13. — Were  those  buildings,  which  you  have  named, 
standing  when  you  first  went  there,  if  yea,  how  did  their  con- 
dition, when  you  first  saw  them,  compare  with  their  condition 
at  the  time  you  have  described? 

Ans. — They  were  standing  when  I  first  went  there  in  184U. 
Their  condition  was  worse  every  succeeding  year. 

Int.  14. — Were  any  additions,  or  extensive  alterations,  or 
repairs  made  by  the  Company  to  their  buildings  and  improve- 
ments at  this  post  while  you  were  acquainted  Avith  them ;  if 
yea,  what? 

Ans. — The  Company  made  frequent  repairs  of  the  buildings 
and  stockade  and  of  their  enclosures,  but  no  material  addi- 
tions. 

Int.  15. — What  use,  if  any,  did  the  Company  make  of  this 
post  while  you  were  there? 

Ans. — It  was  essentially  a  mercantile  establishment.  They 
did  some  farming  and  bought  some  furs,  but  it  was  really 
engaged  in  general  trade. 

Int.  16. — Did  the  Company  have  any  horses  or  cattle  at  this 
post  while  you  were  there;  if  any,  how  many? 

Ans. — They  had  quite  a  number  of  horses  and  cattle  when 
I  first  arrived  there.  The  number  was  an  estimated  one,  not 
known  to  certainty.     I  do  not  know  the  number  myself. 

Int.  17. — What  were  the  relations  between  the  United  States 


I 


6 


left,  in 

I  tiding; 
■house; 
)  where 
t  know 
a  worn- 
t  sec  fit 
e  store- 
to  take 
ic  work 
Bceeded 
igs,  but 

named, 
eir  con- 
jndition 

,n  184i). 

ions,  or 
mprove- 
icm ;  if 

uildings 
il  addi- 

I  of  this 

They 
really 

e  at  this 

le  when 
)ne,  not 
If. 
1  States 


troops  and  the  Company,  friendly  or  otherwise,  while  you 
were  there? 

Ans. — Always  very  friendly.  The  different  commanders 
gave  all  assistance  to  and  protection  necessary  to  the  Com])any 
within  their  power. 

l)it.  18. — Did  the  United  States  have  a  military  station  at 
Vancouver  while  you  were  there,  if  yea,  when  and  where  was 
it  established  in  reference  to  the  claim  of  the  Company? 

Ahs. — Tliey  did  have  all  the  time  I  was  there.  It  was 
established  in  May,  1849,  and  has  been  continued  to  this  day 
at  Vancouver  itself.  The  military  reservation  included  the 
stockade,  which  contained  all  the  buildings,  heretofore  de- 
scribed, within  its  limits.  The  oi'Jitary  post  itself  was  mainly 
JB  built  on  the  hill,  just  in  rear  of  tho  itockade,  but  in  immediate 
proximity  thereto,  with  the  consent  and  upon  the  invitation 
of  Governor  Ogden,  then  ('  of  factor  and  in  charge  of  the 
,,  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  interest  at  that  place. 

Int.  19. — Did  the  Company,  in  your  knowledge,  ever  object 
to  the  use  and  occupation  of  any  part  of  the  land  included  in 
this  military  reservation  by  the  United  States  troops,  if  yea, 
when,  and  how  and  to  what  part  ? 

Ans. — Finally  it  did  at  different  times  in  writing.  I  know 
of  none  that  were  not  made  officially  in  writing. 

Int.  20. — How  did  the  character  of  tho  Company's  buildings 
at  this  post  compare  with  the  buildings  belonging  to  the  United 
States  military  post  there? 

Ans. — They  were  of  an  inferior  character. 

Int.  21. — What,  in  your  judgment,  was  the  value  of  the 
buildings  and  improvements  belonging  to  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  at  this  post,  at  the  time  you  last  saw  them  in  18G0? 

Ans. — Speaking  as  a  military  officer,  I  did  not  consider 
them  of  any  real  value,  that  is,  they  were  of  no  value  to  the 
United  States.  What  improvements  they  had  in  the  fall  of 
1860  were  in  the  midst  of  a  militai-y  reservation,  and  had  been 
abandoned  by  the  Company.  The  military  authorities  wished 
to  make  no  use  of  th^^m,  would  rather  have  been  glad  to  have 
had  the  ground  cleared  of  them,  and  of  course  would  not  have 


6 


permitted  private  parties  to  occupy  them,  hence  my  estimate 
of  their  value. 

////.  22.  —What  effect,  if  any,  did  the  settlements  of  the 
country  in  Washington  and  Oregon  Territories  have  on  the 
fur  trade  with  the  Indians? 

A)i8. — Undoubtedly  it  decreased  it. 

Int.  23. — Were  or  were  not  the  buildings  and  improvements 
erected  by  the  Company  at  Vancouver  adapted  to  the  purposes 
of  ordinary  trade  and  commerce  with  a  peaceful  people,  or 
were  designed  principally  for  protection  and  defence  against 
tribes  of  Indians  who  were  liable  at  times  to  be  hostile? 

(Objected  to,  as  leading  and  directing  the  witness  as  to  his 
answer.) 

A718. — In  that  early  period  the  buildings  within  the  stock- 
ade were  well  enough  adapted  for  trade  in  that  country,  but 
the  establishment  was  built  as  well  for  defence. 

I7it.  24. — How  far,  in  your  judgment,  was  the  whole  of 
these  buildings  and  erections  reduced  in  value  by  the  fact 
that  they  were  no  longer  needed  for  a  place  of  defence? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  the  value  was  materially  reduced 
on  that  account.  The  establishment  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany finally  became  of  little  or  no  value  as  a  trading  post  on 
account  of  the  rapid  settlement  and  prosperity  of  the  country. 

Int.  25. — How  did  the  rapid  settlement  and  prosperity  of 
the  country  materially  reduce  the  value  of  this  establishment 
at  Vancouver?     Please  to  explain  as  fully  as  you  can. 

Ans. — The  settlement  of  the  country  brought  about  many 
competing  trading  establishments  at  various  points,  with  whom 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  could  hardly  succeed.  The  fur 
trade  of  Oregon  and  Washington  Territories  was  never  a  pro- 
lific source  of  profit.  It  gradually  fell  to  nothing.  The  set- 
tlement of  the  country  had  reduced  the  establishment  to  very 
narrow  limits,  and  little  or  no  trade. 

Int.  26. — What  was  the  value  of  land  at  Vancouver  and 
its  vicinity  when  you  were  there  in  1860,  and  how  did  its  value 
at  that  timo  compare  with  its  value  in  1849? 

Ans. — The  value  of  lands  at  Vancouver  in  1860  was  greater 
than  in  1849,  but  its  value  per  acre  at  either  time  depended 


'v  estimate 

nts  of  the 
avc  on  the 


rovcments 

0  purposes 
people,  or 
;e  against 
tile? 

as  to  his 

the  stock- 
iJ'try,  but 

wliole   of 
the  fact 
ce? 

1  reduced 
'ay  Com- 
post on 

country. 
)erity  of 
ishment 

t  many 
whom 
The  fur 
'  a  pro- 
'he  set- 
to  very 

er  and 
s  value 

;i'eater 
►ended 


/ 


altogether  on  the  particular  location.  I  don't  know,  and  no 
one  can  tell,  the  value  of  the  land  included  in  the  military 
reservation,  none  having  been  bought  or  sold.  In  the  town 
of  Vancouver  in  1860  land  was  worth  from  one  hundred  to 
one  thousand  dollars  per  acre.  In  184*J  this  town  was  unoc- 
cupied altogether,  and  was  mostly  a  forest.  In  18G0  I  pur- 
chased some  ten  acres  of  land  in  Vancouver,  at  what  I  consid- 
ered the  most  eligible  point  on  the  river,  for  one  thousand 
dollars,  and  during  the  present  year  have  sold  it  for  the  same, 
not  being  able  ever  to  get  more  than  that  sum.  It  was  situated 
in  the  lower  part  of  the  town  of  Vancouver,  about  a  half  of  a 
mile  below  what  was  known  as  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's 
salmon-house.  The  value  of  lands  away  from  the  river  was 
much  less. 

Int.  27. — Was  there  any  material  change  in  the  value  of 
land  at  Vancouver  and  in  its  vicinity  between  1800  and  1863 
to  your  knowledge ;  if  yea,  what  was  it  ? 

Ans. — No;  I  don't  think  that  there  was.  I  made  verv  fre- 
quent  inquiries  and  could  not  ascertain  that  there  was  any 
increased  value. 

Int.  28. — What  should  you  consider  was  the  value  of  one 
mile  square  at  Fort  Vancouver  fronting  on  the  river,  selecting 
the  most  favorable  location,  in  1860? 

Ans. — It  would  be  hard  to  say,  because  that  would  include 
the  military  reservation,  the  mission  claims,  and  the  town  of 
Vancouver.  The  town  has  had  its  existence  since  1840.  In 
1860  property  was  held  in  the  town  at  various  prices.  I  don't 
know  that  I  could  fix  an  estimate  price  upon  it.  Its  value 
would  have  been  very  much  greater,  and  the  place  of  much 
higher  importance,  had  it  not  been  for  the  opposition  to  settle- 
ment on  the  part  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  the  earlier 
years. 

Int.  29. — What  were  the  relations  between  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  and  the  settlers  in  the  vicinity  of  their  post  at 
Vancouver  when  you  first  went  there,  and  what  was  the  policy 
of  the  Company  towards  those  persons  who  settled  or  at- 
tempted to  settle  there  ? 

Ans. — The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  opposed  settlement  so 


8 


il 

(■Ml 


I 


11 


far  as  in  their  power  within  the  limits  of  their  claim.  The  rela- 
tion, therefore,  was  generally  a  hostile  one. 

Int.  30. — What  eft'ect,  in  your  opinion,  did  this  policy  have 
on  the  growth  and  prosperity  of  the  toAvn  of  Vancouver? 

An8. — It  retarded  it  irameasuraijly.  Had  there  been  no 
opposition,  the  town  of  Vancouver,  in  my  opinion,  would  have 
been  the  principal  one  on  the  Columbia  river  or  its  branches, 
between  the  coast  and  the  Cascade  mountains.  But  when  the 
settlement  was  finally  made,  Portland  was  already  a  flourish- 
ing city,  and  so  near  by  that  Vancouver  has  never  flourished 
much. 

Int.  31. — In  the  present  condition  of  aff"airs  in  the  country 
west  of  the  Cascades,  having  regard  to  the  present  course 
of  trade  and  the  existing  adverse  influences,  is  it,  in  your 
opinion,  possible  to  build  up  at  present  a  large  town  at  Van- 
couver? 

Ans — I  do  not  think  so;  that  is,  I  think  it  is  improbable  that 
a  large  town  can  be  built  there. 

Int.  32. — Are  not  the  high  prices  which  have  been  charged 
for  building  lots  at  Vancouver  founded  on  the  anticipation  of 
a  state  of  facts  which  in  your  opinion  [will]  never  be  realized? 

An8. — Altogether  so. 

Int.  33. — Has  not  the  experience  of  the  last  five  years  tended 
to  confirm  you  in  your  opinion,  and  are  not  the  lands  there 
worth,  if  anything,  less  than  they  were  at  one  time,  which  is 
past? 

(This  question  and  the  preceding  one  in  reference  to  the 
opinion  of  the  witness  objected  to.) 

Ans. — I  have  not  been  to  that  place  during  the  past  five 
years,  but  from  all  the  information  within  my  reach  I  am  of 
opinion  that  the  lands  there  would  have  been  sold  at  one  time 
higher  than  now. 

Int.  34. — If  you  know,  please  to  state  in  what  mode  the 
Company  paid  their  employes  for  labor,  whether  in  cash  or 
goods? 

Ans. — Principally  in  goods. 

Int.  35. — If  you  know,  please  to  state  the  prevailing  price 


9 


of  wages  and  building  materials  at  Vancouver  in  1849  and 
subsequently. 

Ans. — The  prices  were  much  higher  in  1849  and  1850  than 
subsequently.  The  prices  declined  from  that  period.  Labor 
was  from  two  to  eight  dollars  per  day,  some  classes  even  higher 
than  that.  Lumber  was  from  forty  to  one  hundred  dollars  per 
thousand  in  1849  and  1850;  all  prices  gradually  declined  there- 
after. What  I  say  in  regard  to  the  laborers  does  not  include 
the  employes  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  The  discovery 
of  gold  and  the  necessity  for  building  materials,  and  its  scar- 
city, conduced  to  the  high  price  of  labor  and  material  at  that 
time. 

Int.  36. — State,  if  you  know,  what  was  the  character  of  the 
labor  employed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Ads. — Those  at  Vancouver  were  mostly  Canadians  who  had 
long  been  in  the  service  of  the  Company,  half-breed  Indians, 
and  Kanakas,  and  full-blood  Indians  temporarily  employed. 

Int.  37. — What  was  the  policy  pursued  by  the  Company  to- 
wards the  Indians,  so  far  as  you  know,  and  what  services,  if 
any,  by  way  of  religious  instruction  or  otherwise,  did  they 
render  in  their  behalf? 

Ans. — Their  policy  towards  the  Indians  was  a  very  proper 
and  good  one.  On  our  arrival  in  that  country  the  Indians  were 
everywhere  peaceable,  and  there  seemed  to  be  mutual  confi- 
dence between  the  Indians  and  the  Company.  I  am  not  aware 
of  the  Company's  contributing  much  to  the  education  of  the 
Indians.  Their  course  towards  the  Indians  was  one  of  great 
philanthropy. 

Int.  38. — What  services,  if  any,  were  rendered  by  the  Com- 
pany in  promoting  the  settlement  of  the  country  by  building 
roads  or  furnishing  other  facilities  for  the  useabd  convenience 
of  settlers? 

Ans. — Of  my  own  personal  knowledge  I  do  not  remember 
that  from  1849  the  Company  did  much  service  that  way.  On 
the  contrary,  the  Company  opposed  settlements  in  its  vicinity. 

Int.  39. — You  have  stated  that  the  treatment  of  the  Indians 
by  the  CoMipany  was  humane  and  philanthropical ;   do  you 


Ji 


I!! 


10 

know  whether  they  exerted  themselves  to  cause  a  kindly  feel- 
ing on  the  part  of  the  Indians  towards  settlers? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  they  exerted  anything  but  good 
influence. 

Int.  40. — Was  the  land  at  Vancouver,  which  was  enclosed 
and  occupied  by  the  Company,  injured  or  improved  by  culti- 
vation? 

Ans. — I  should  suppose  improved. 

Int.  41. — Is  the  land  at  Vancouver  overflowed  in  the  spring 
or  summer;  if  yea,  how  docs  this  fact  aff"ect  the  value  of  land 
there  for  farming  purposes  ? 

An.^. — The  lands  in  Vancouver  and  along  the  bottoms  of 
the  river  generally  are  liable  to  inundation  in  May  or  June, 
which  makes  them  of  precarious  value  for  farming  purposes. 

Int.  42. — Have  you  ever  visited  any  of  the  posts  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  North  America;  if  yea,  where? 

Ans. — I  have  seen  their  establishment  at  Astoria  or  Fort 
George,  at  Cape  Disappointment,  and  upon  the  Cowlitz  and 
Puget's  Sound. 

Int.  43. — Are  you  sufficiently  acquainted  with  any  of  these 
posts  to  give  a  description  of  their  character  and  value  ;  if 
yea,  please  to  describe  them  as  particularly  as  you  can  ? 

Ans. — All  these  places  were  subordinate  trading  stations  to 
that  at  Vancouver,  most  of  them  consisting  of  two  or  three 
inferior  buildings.  They  were  never  of  any  great  value  as 
improvements,  and  would  have  been  of  no  practical  value  to 
the  Government.  They  answered  simply  for  the  passing 
accommodation  of  the  Company,  and  were  good  for  nothing 
else. 

Int.  44, — You  have  stated  that  the  relations  betAveen  the 
Company  and  the  United  States  officers  were  friendly.  Doea 
this  apply  to  the  entire  time  that  you  were  there,  or  did  a 
change  occur  before  you  left  in  the  conduct  of  the  officers  of 
the  Company  in  relation  to  the  acts  of  the  United  States 
officers  ? 

Ans. — I  mean  that  the  personal  relations  were  quite  friendly 
always,  but  the  official  relations  during  the  last  year  of  the 


1 


11. 


iiully  foel- 

but  good 

}  enclosed 
I  by  culti- 


t'le  f^pring 
lie  of  land 

ottorns  of 
or  June, 
lurposes. 
Its  of  the 
,  where? 
I  or  Fort 
wlitz  and 

r  of  these 

value ;  if 

an  ? 

:ations  to 
or  three 
value  as 
value  to 
passing 
nothing 

i^een  the 
Does 
)r  did  a 
fficers  of 
i  States 

friendly 
of  the 


Company's  stay  at  Vancouver  were  hostile  on  the  part  of  the 
Company. 

Int.  4r>. — Please  to  state  whether  or  not  any  acts  of  aggres- 
sion on  the  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bi»y  Company  have,  to  your 
knowle(lii;e,  ever  been  committed  by  the  civil  or  military  offi- 
cers of  the  United  States? 

Ans. — It  depends  altogether  on  circumstances  whether  or 
IJ  not  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  were  entitled  to  what  they 

laid  claim  to.  It  was  uniformly  the  expressed  desire  of  the 
military  authorities  of  the  United  States  to  protect  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  in  their  possessory  rights,  particularly  up 
to  the  time  their  charter  terminated.  It  is  undeniable  that 
lands  which  the  Company  claimed  were  taken  and  made  use  of 
by  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

Int.  4G. — Please  to  state,  as  nearly  as  you  can,  the  number 
of  vessels  that  yearly  came  to  Vancouver  from  abroad,  while 
you  were  there,  that  were  owned  or  controlled  by  the  Hudson 
Bay  Company  ? 
JB  Ans. — I  never  kept  any  record,  but  I  should  say  never  to 

^  exceed  four,  and  rarely  more  than  two.     Probably  one  of  the 

vessels  referred  to  might  have  made  various  trips  between 
Vancouver's  Island  and  Columbia  river.  I  don't  know  ever 
to  have  exceeded  two  from  abroad  in  any  one  year. 

Cross-Examination. 

Int.  1. — Was  there  not  in  the  vicinity  of  the  post  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Vancouver  an  amount  of  land, 
which,  though  not  enclosed  in  1849,  bore  marks  of  previous 
cultivation? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  2. — Was  there  not  raised  in  the  vicinity  of  Vancouver 
a  considerable  amount  of  hay  from  tame  grasses  sown  previous 
to  your  arrival  in  that  country  in  1849? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  3. — You  speak  of  the  Company  not  having  exclusive 
control  of  the  unenclosed  lands,  you  mean  by  that,  I  suppose, 
to  refer  only  to  the  period  subsequent  to  your  arrival  there  in 


i: 

ii;,     : 

it! 


il 


tl; 
ill 

ili 


12 

1849,  and  to  the  conduct  and  encroachments  of  American 
citizens  claiming  and  exercising  the  right  to  settle  in  1849  on 
lands  claimed  by  the  Company? 

(The  word  encroachment  objected  to.) 

Ans. — I  refer  to  that  period  exclusively.  When  I  said  they 
had  not  exclusive  control  over  unenclosed  lands,  I  meant  that 
the  military  and  the  citizens  who  had  settled  in  the  neighbor- 
hood, as  well  as  the  Indians,  made  use  of  these  unenclosed 
portions  at  will. 

Int.  4. — Do  you  know  anything  of  citizens  settling  on  unen- 
closed lands  being  warned  oflF  or  notified  to  leave  by  the  agents 
of  the  Company? 

Ans. — Yes,  it  was  done  by  the  military  as  well  as  the  Com- 
pany when  the  settlers  came  on  the  military  reservation.  At 
the  time  I  speak  of,  during  my  first  tour  from  1849  to  1852, 
the  military  reservation  consisted  of  four  miles  square,  the 
flag-staff  at  the  post  at  Fort  Vancouver  being  the  centre. 

Int.  5. — In  your  testimony  you  state  that  the  Company  at 
the  time  of  leaving  Vancouver  abandoned  all  their  posts  on 
the  American  side.  Do  you  feel  certain  that  Colvile,  Okana- 
gan,  the  Kootenay,  and  Flatheads  were  left  by  them  at  that 
time? 

Ans. — I  was  told  they  were.  With  regard  to  Kootenay  I 
no  not  know,  but  I  understood  they  were  abandoned.  With 
regard  to  Fort  Colvile  I  have  always  understood  it  was  just 
north  of  the  49th  parallel. 

Int.  G. — Were  not  most  of  the  buildings  used  for  oflicers' 
quarters  at  the  military  post  at  Vancouver  built  of  logs  or 
square  timber,  and  were  they  not  comfortable  and  convenient 
quarters  ? 

Ans. — They  were,  all  of  them,  originally  built  of  logs,  ex- 
cept the  quarters  occupied  by  myself,  and  were  considered  at 
that  time  and  place  quite  comfortable? 

Int.  7. — Can  you  give  the  approximate  cost  of  the  largest 
of  these  buildings  and  its  dimensions,  and  the  cost  of  an 
average  building? 

Ans. — In  my  report  at  that  period,  I  think  I  put  down  the 
commanding  oflicer's  quarters  at  $7,500,  and  the  smaller  ones 


18 


American 
n  1849  on 


said  they 
leant  that 
nciglibor- 
ncnclosed 


;on  unen- 
lie  agents 

the  Com- 
;ion.     At 

to  1852, 
uare,  the 
itre. 
npany  at 

posts  on 
,  Okana- 
at  that 

otenay  I 
With 
was  just 

officers' 

logs  or 

tvenient 


ogs,  ex- 
lered  at 

largest 
of  an 

wn  the 
sr  ones 


on  the  right  and  left  of  it  at  $2,500  each.  Subsequently 
heavy  expenses  were  incurred  in  fitting  them  up.  I  don't 
know  tliat  I  can  give  the  cost,  but  it  would  bring  the  smaller 
ones  up  to  seven  or  eight  thousand  dollars  a-piecc.  It  would 
have  been  a  great  deal  cheaper  to  have  built  houses  of  the 
same  dimensions  framed  and  finished  ofi'in  the  ordinary  way 
than  to  have  made  these  repairs. 

Int.  8. — Does  this  cost  include  the  work  done  by  soldiers  or 
only  the  work  done  by  mechanics? 

Ans. — It  includes  worl^one  by  soldiers  when  they  were  on 
extra  duty,  as  most  of  those  employed  were,  at  what  the  Gov- 
ernment allowed  at  that  period,  not  exceeding  fifty  cents  a  day 
for  carpenters  and  bricklayers.  The  groat  majority  of  all  the 
work  done  was  performed  by  citizen  labor? 

Int.  9. — Did  not  the  want  of  the  clapboards  and  paint  give 
the  Company's  buildings  at  their  fort  an  old  and  dilapidated 
appearance  ? 

Ans. — Yes ;  undoubtedly  it  contributed  to  it. 

Int.  10. — Did  not  the  families  of  th*e  military  officers  of  the 
United  States  seek  shelter  in  the  Indian  war  in  1855  and  1856 
within  the  buildings  of  the  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  belive  on  one  or  two  occasions  a  portion  of  them 
did. 

Int.  11. — What  do  you  know  of  the  women  and  families  of 
the  settlers  during  the  same  war  having  come  into  the  Com- 
pany's fort  nightly  for  protection? 

Ans. — Some  may  have  come  into  the  Company's  fort,  but 
the  great  majority  of  the  settlers  were  encamped  near  the 
bank  of  the  river,  on  the  edge  of  the  present  town  and  near 
the  salmon-house.  I  regarded  them  as  under  the  protection 
of  the  United  States  military  authorities.  The  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  on  that  occasion  co-operated  cheerfully  and  to  the 
fullest  extent  with  the  military  authorities  in  the  defence  of 
Vancouver. 

Int.  12, — In  stating  what  you  have  in  reference  to  the  fur 
trade  of  the  Company,  have  you  learned  this  from  the  books 
of  the  Company,  or  is  it  merely  your  own  opinion  ? 


14 


In: 


i 
I 


I 


i'li 


I' 

V\  •' 
Ji 


'ill 


Ans. — It  is  from  what  I  have  heard  from  various  sources. 
I  never  have  had  any  access  to  the  books  of  the  Company  at  all, 
but  have  heard  it  remarked  by  members  of  the  Company  and 
other  persons. 

Int.  13. — You  have  spoken  of  the  overflow  of  the  river.  Is 
not  the  portion  of  the  land  overflowed  in  ordinary  freshets  on 
the  mile-square,  designated  on  the  map  as  the  Mission  claim, 
which  includes  the  front  of  the  military  reservation,  the  site 
of  the  old  fort  of  the  Company  and  much  of  the  present  town, 
very  small,  and  does  not  this  overflow  improve  rather  than  injure 
the  grass,  mowing  lands,  and  pasturage? 

Ans. — The  amount  actually  overflowed  ordinarily  is  small. 
No,  I  believe  it  does  not  improve  the  grass-mowing  lands  and 
pasturages.  This  overflow  happens  at  a  season  destructive  to 
the  growth  on  the  portions  overflowed. 

Int.  14. — Are  the  farming  lands  of  the  river  banks  over- 
flowed every  year;  and  is  it  not  rather  an  unusual  circumstance 
for  the  water  to  be  high  enough  to  damage  the  crops  on  the 
land  commonly  cultivated  ? 

Ans. — Yes ;  unusual,  happening  hardly  ever  more  than  twice 
in  ten  years,  though  liable  to  happen  every  year  when  the 
snows  on  the  main  sources  of  the  Columbia  melt  simul- 
taneously. 

Int.  15. — What  is  the  effect  of  this  overflow  on  the  soil 
where  it  occurs? 

Ans. — Beneficial,  rather  than  otherwise,  as  the  sediment  is 
of  alluvial  character. 

Int.  10. — Is  not  the  greater  part  of  the  Company's  claim 
free  from  this  overflow,  and  is  it  not  confined  to  a  portion  of 
the  land  bordering  on  the  river  above? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  17. — At  what  time  did  you  first  see  the  Company's 
place  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz ;  also,  at  what  time  those 
at  Fort  George  and  Astoria  and  Cape  Disappointment? 

Ans. — I  saw  those  at  Cape  Disappointment  and  Astoria  first 
in  May,  18-49;  those  on  the  Cowlitz,  near  its  mouth,  in  1850; 
those  above  and  on  the  sound,  in  1857. 


■i'i. 


m 


15 


■4 


'-I 

r. 


Int.  18. — How  long  were  you  at  Astoria  and  Cape  Disap- 
poiiitineiit  and  in  Baker's  Bay? 

Ann. — In  1849  I  was  in  Baker's  Bay  one  or  two  days,  on 
shore  several  hours,  walked  all  over  the  place,  and  was  at  Asto- 
ria several  days  on  many  occasions  from  1840  to  1852. 

Int.  10. — Can  you  say  from  your  recollection  that  there  were 
not  at  Astaria  in  1849  three  dwelling-houses  and  a  store? 

Ann. — I  have  no  doubt  that  there  Avas  that  number. 

Int.  20. — Is  it  your  recollection  that  the  buildings  at  the 
Cowlitz  farms  and  at  Nisqually  were  merely  for  the  purpose 
of  the  passing  accommodation  of  the  Company's  officers ;  do 
you  not,  on  calling  them  again  to  mind,  recollect  that  at  the 
Cowlitz  Prairie  the  buildings  were  large  and  substantial,  and 
so  also  at  Nisqually  ? 

Ans. — According  to  my  understanding  all  those  places  were 
for  the  passing  or  temporary  accommodation  of  the  Company, 
though  several  of  the  buildiiif;s  were  large  in  order  to  afford 
the  necessary  accommodations  for  the  farming  and  other  opera- 
tions conducted  by  the  Company. 

Int.  21. — AVlien  you  last  saw  Cape  Disappointment  was  there 
not  a  light-house,  fort,  and  other  buildings  there,  erected  by 
the  Government  of  the  United  States? 

Ans. — Wiien  I  last  saw  it  18G0  there  was  a  light-house,  but 
no  fort. 

Int.  22. — In  reply  to  a  question  as  to  acts  of  transgression, 
you  have  stated  that  up  the  time  their  charter  terminated  it 
was  the  desire  of  the  military  authorities  to  protect  the  Com- 
pany. What  do  you  mean  by  the  expiration  of  the  charter, 
and  was  there  any  care  after  that  time  as  to  their  rights? 

Ans. — I  had  always  understood  that  what  was  known  as  the 
charter  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  expired  on  the  thir- 
tieth May,  1859,  and  that  whatever  rights  or  privileges  were 
accorded  them  afterwards  was  by  favor  of  the  United  States 
Government.  This  was  substantially  stated  to  the  chief  agent 
of  the  Company  in  charge  at  Vancouver  in  1860  by  General 
Harney.  They  were  not  disturbed  or  threatened  to  be  inside 
of  their  stockade  by  the  military  authorities,  but  every  cour- 


16 


it.il  I' 


tesy  offered  up  to  the  time  when  Mr.  Dallas  informed  General 
Harney  that  the  Company  would  retire  from  the  Territory. 

RuFUS  Ingalls, 
Brevet  Major  General  VoU.  and  Q.  M.  U.  S.  A. 
Washington  City,  D.  C,  3Iay  1th,  1867. 


;t;l 


Becalled. 


;  1 ! . 


1  •  I 


0!|i 


Int.  23. — Were  there  not  several  buildings,  large  and  small, 
used  occasionally  for  ordnance  and  hospital  purposes,  and  for 
dwelling-houses,  &c.,  outside  the  stockades  and  enclosures  of 
the  Company  at  Fort  Vancouver  by  the  military  authorities, 
and  for  which  rent  was  paid  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
during  most  of  the  time  you  resided  as  quartermaster  at  Fort 
Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  there  were.  Before  the  Government  had  time 
to  erect  the  necessary  buildings  I  rented  some  of  the  Company* 
In  1849  I  rented  two  large  unfinished  houses  outside  of  the 
stockade,  and  repaired  them  so  as  to  subserve  a  useful  pur- 
pose. Afterwards  I  rented  some  others,  but  long  before  I  left 
there  these  buildings  were  given  up,  and  the  Government  had 
erected  good  and  sufficient  ones  of  its  own. 

Int.  24. — Was  there  not  also  a  large  building  inside  of  the 
fort  know^n  as  the  quartermaster  and  commissary  store,  rented 
in  the  same  manner  from  the  Company? 

Ans. — Yes,  there  was.  I  rented  and  used  it  as  a  storehouse 
for  the  quartermaster  and  commissary  departments.  But  I 
shortly  afterwards  built  a  fine  wharf  and  large  storehouses  on 
the  bank  of  the  river,  and  this  building  was  restored  to  the 
Company.  When  I  left  in  1860  it  had  been  pulled  down.  It 
was  old  and  of  no  value  to  the  Government. 


;itli 


Examination-in-  Chief  Resumed. 

Int.  1. — Did  you  or  not,  while  at  Vancouver,  observe  the 
policy  of  the  Company  in  regard  to  the  settlement  of  the  coun- 


17 


General 
ritory. 

U.  S.  A. 


nd  small, 
,  and  for 
osures  of 
thorities, 
Company 
r  at  Fort 


try  by  American  citizens?  If  yea,  please  to  describe  that 
policy,  and  state  whether  or  not,  in  your  opinion,  it  was,  in 
this  rejiaid,  favorable  or  otherwise. 

Ann. — The  policy  of  the  Company  towards  American  set- 
tlers was  highly  selfish  and  exclusive,  especially  so  in  and 
near  their  establishments  and  claims.  The  Company  rendered 
much  aid,  I  am  told,  to  the  early  settlers  by  selling  them  food, 
clothes,  and  articles  of  husbandry  on  credit;  but  it  was  for 
the  interest  of  the  Company  to  do  so.  Settlements  on  lands 
claimed  by  the  Company  were  always  discouraged  and  opposed, 
and  Avhat  is  now  Washington  Territory  has  suffered  much  since 
1846  on  account  of  the  presence  of  the  Conipany.  Settlements 
have  been  retarded  and  titles  to  lands  withheld  and  confused. 

RuFUS  Ingall.^, 
Brevet  Major  General  and  Q.  M.  U.  S.  A. 


had  time 
/ompany- 
ie  of  the 
jful  pur- 
HVG  I  loft 
Dent  had 

of  the 
rented 

^rehouse 
But  I 
ouses  on 
d  to  the 
wn.     It 


rve  the 
■be  coun* 


Testimony  of  Lieutenant  General  U.  S.  Grant. 

Lieutenant  General  U.  S.  Grant,  being  duly  sworn  according 
to  law,  says: 

Int.  1. — Have  you  ever  resided  in  any  part  of  Washington 
Territory?  It  yea,  when,  at  what  place  or  places,  and  how 
long  at  each  place. 

Ans. — I  was  stationed  al  Fort  Vancouver,  as  an  officer  of 
the  United  States  army,  from  about  the  last  of  September, 
1852,  to  about  the  same  time  in  1853,  nearly  a  year  in  all. 
I  never  lived  at  any  other  time  in  Washington  Territory  nor 
at  any  other  place. 

Int.  2. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  land  and  buildings  at 
and  near  Vancouver,  which  are  claimed  by  the  Hudson  Bay 
Company?  If  yea,  please  to  describe  and  define,  by  reference 
to  this  map,  here  produced,  or  otherwise,  as  particularly  as 
you  can,  the  location  and  limits  of  this  claim. 

Ans. — I  am  well  acquainted  with  all  the  lands  about  Van- 
couver. I  am  not  acquainted  with  the  boundaries  of  the  Com- 
pany's claim.  I  know  the  buildings  and  enclosures  of  their 
2C 


•I  "I; 


\      '    <■ 


iiii 


:i'!;i 


m 


■'    ' 


18 

claim  in  tliat  noigliborhood.     I  have  1»com  all  around  there,  but 
have  no  i<lea  of  the  number  of  acres  enclosed. 

Int.  3. — Were  all  the  lands  at  this  place,  which  were  claimed 
by  the  Company,  occupied  exclusively  by  them?  If  not,  please 
to  describe,  as  nearly  as  you  can,  those  portions  of  this  claim 
which  were  enclosed,  or  of  which  they  had  exclusive  possession 
when  you  were  there. 

Ans. — Hack  of  the  saw-mill  there  was  a  large  enclosure,  and 
then  within  the  reservation  thev  had  small  enclosures  around 
their  houses;  and  then,  just  above  where  the  buildings  were, 
they  hatl  a  large  field,  I  think  about  forty  to  fifty  acres.  I 
cultivated  potatoes  in  that  field  myself,  by  permission  of  the 
Hudson's  May  Company. 

Int.  4. — How  were  these  portions  of  their  claim  at  this  post, 
of  which  they  had  not  exclusive  possession,  occupied  by  them, 
if  at  all? 

Ans. — I  don't  think  they  were  occupied  at  all.  There  was, 
below  the  reservation,  a  man  by  the  n  ime  of  Malick,  one 
named  Short,  one  named  Byles,  and  tw  others,  whose  names 
I  have  forgotten,  who  held  claims  and  were  cultivating  them. 
There  may  have  been  others,  but  I  remember  only  those  I 
have  mentioned.  On  the  lands  outside  of  the  enclosures  any 
man  could  let  his  stock  run.  I  don't  know  that  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  had  any  loose  stock  on  it;  they  may  have  had. 
I  meant  by  loose  stock,  that  which  they  were  not  using. 

Int.  5. — Did  any  other  persons,  other  than  those  who  be- 
longed to  this  Company,  occupy  those  portions  of  their  claim 
which  were  not  enclosed;  if  yea,  who,  and  in  what  respect  did 
the  occupation  of  such  persons  diifer,  if  in  any  respect,  from 
the  occupation  of  the  Company? 

Ana. — Any  one  that  had  stock  could  use  the  unenclosed 
ground;  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  did  not  have  exclusive 
privileges  on  it. 

Int.  6. — Where  there  any  visible  marks  or  objects  to  define 
the  extent  of  the  claim  of  the  Company  at  this  place,  to  your 
knowledge;  if  yea,  please  to  describe  them. 

Ans. — There  were  none  to  my  knowledge.  Going  back  to 
one  of  the  former  questions  :  There  was  on  the  Fourth  Plain 


4 


)re,  but 

;laimcd 
,  please 
s  fluim 
sscssion 

lire,  and 

around 

js  wern, 

LTCS.       I 

I  of  the 

his  post, 
jy  them, 

lerc  was, 
ick,  one 
e  names 

II  them, 
those  I 
res  any 
uds  )n's 

live  had. 


■m 


'g- 
Iwlio  be- 

nv  chiim 

;pect  did 

let,  from 

inclosed 
:clusive 

lo  define 
1  to  your 

back  to 
h  Plain 


4 


.-^ 


19 

one  Covington,  wlio  occupied  a  claim,  and  may  own  it  now. 
I  don't  know  who  enclosed  this,  Mr.  f'ovin};ton  or  the  Hud- 
son's Hiiy  Company.  IIo  may  have  obtained  possession  from 
the  Hudson's  IJay  Company. 

Jnt.  7. — You  have  stated  that  there  were  no  visible  marks 
of  the  boundaries  of  their  claim  to  your  knowlcd;;e;  did  you 
while  there,  fre(iuently  ride  in  one  direction  and  another,  so 
that  if  there  liad  been  any  monuments  or  landmarks  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  fort  you  would  have  been  likely  to  have  no- 
ticed them? 

(Objected  to  as  leading  and  argumentative,  and  directing 
the  witness  as  to  his  answer.) 

Am. — I  was  in  the  habit  of  riding  out  on  every  roatl  I  could 
find;  I  never  saw  anything  to  mark  any  claim,  except  what 
was  enclosed. 

Inf.  8. — What  was  the  character  of  the  land  which  was  in- 
oludr  t  in  this  claim  of  the  Company?  What  portion  of  it,  if 
any,  was  good  tillage  land ;  what  portion,  if  any,  was  good 
grazing  land;  what  portion,  if  any,  was  wood-land,  and  what 
was  the  value  of  each  portion  respectively  ?  State  as  fully  as 
you  can. 

Alts. — The  great  majority  of  the  bottom  land  was  subject  to 
overflow,  in  the   months  of  June  and  July,  and  for  that  rea- 
son was  not  susceptible  of  cultivation,  but  was  good  grazing 
land.     That  not  subject  to  overflow   was  principally  densely 
wooded,  and  my  impression  of  it  at  the  time  was  it  was  very 
poor,   if   cleared.      These   plains   were   comparatively    small 
prairies,  in  this  densely  wooded  country,  and  were  susceptible 
of  cultivation.     The  woodland  was,  I  think,  not  worth  any- 
thing, except  the  value  given  to  it  by  settlement.     It  could 
not  be  worth  anything  to  the  Hudson  Bay  Company,  as  a 
tradiiig  post  among  the  Indians.     The  tillable  land  and  over- 
flowed bottom   laud  could  have  been  of  value  to  them  in  sup- 
plying provisions,  and  for  ^razing  all  the  stock  it  was  neces- 
sary for  them  to  keep.     How  much  per  acre  it  was  worth  for 
that  purpose  I  don't  feel  competent  to  judge.     To  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Campany,  as  a  trading  Company,  this  land  had  value 
in  supplying  food  and  grazing  stock  for  their  use,  for  what- 


20 


ever  niimbT  of  men  they  may  have  found  necessary  to  keep  at 
the  place ;  they  could  have  raised  provisions  for  them,  bread, 
meat,  and  vegetables.  In  my  opinion,  the  land  was  worth  to 
them,  as  a  trading  Company,  the  difference  between  the  cost 
of  the  production  of  these  articles  at  home  and  the  cost  of 
buying  them  elsewhere  and  importing  them.  I  give  this 
simply  as  an  individual  opinion,  and  not  as  a  positive  estimate 
of  the  value  of  the  land. 

Int.  9. — Supposing  that  the  claim  of  the  Company  extends 
from  six  to  eight  miles  above  the  Tort  on  the  one  side  to  the 
Cathlapootl,  or  Lewes  River,  on  the  other,  and  back  from  the 
Columbia  lliver,  for  the  space  of  eight  to  ten  miles,  does  the 
description  which  you  have  given  of  the  character  of  their 
claim  apply  to  this  extent  of  territory  ? 

Ans. — I  didn't  know  the  extent  of  their  claim,  but  answered 
only  for  a  number  of  miles  of  that  portion  around  Fort  Van- 
couver, where  they  had  roads,  and  which  I  travelled  over.  I 
have  been  about  six  miles  down  the  river. 

Int.  10. — Please  to  enumerate  and  describe  as  fully  as  you 
can  the  different  buildings  at  this  post  which  were  occupied 
by  the  Hudson  Bay  Company,  when  you  were  there,  and  their 
condition  and  value  at  that  time. 

Ans. — I  can't  describe  them  very  well.  They  had  a  mill, 
store-houses,  &c.  I  should  think  they  had  buildings  sufficient 
to  accommodate  about  two  hundred  people,  besides  the  large 
store-houses  for  selling  goods,  storing  provisions,  granaries, 
saw  and  grist-mills.  The  buildings  were  chiefly  of  wood,  some 
of  them,  not  all,  were  made  of  hewn  timber,  about  six  inches 
thick,  set  down  between  upright  p  eces,  fitting  in  a  groove 
made  in  the  upright  pieces,  either  by  nailing  on  pieces  of 
plank,  or  by  an  actual  groove  set  in  these  upright  pieces. 
This  is  my  recollection  of  them,  I  won't  be  positive.  The 
buildings  looked  ab  though  they  had  been  in  use  for  many  years, 
but  were  still  substantial,  and  would  have  answered  for  many 
years  with  ordinary  repairs.  In  regard  to  their  value,  I 
could  not  make  any  estimate.  They  were  buildings  a  com- 
pany of  troops  could  put  up  very  rapidly,  finding  the  mate- 
rials near  at  hand,  as  was  the  case  at  Fort  Vancouver. 


21 


to  keep  at 
em,  bread, 
s  worth  to 
n  the  cost 
he  cost  of 
give  this 
c  cfstimate 

y  extends 
idc  to  the 
[  from  the 
i,  does  the 
r  of  their 

answered 
Fort  Van- 
1  over.     I 

lly  as  you 
occupied 
and  their 

id  a  mill, 
sufficient 
the  large 
granaries, 
ood,  some 
six  inches 
a  groove 
pieces  of 
it  pieces, 
ive.     The 
my  years, 
for  many 
value,   I 
;s  a  corn- 
he  mate- 
3r. 


I 


Int.  11. — While  you  were  there,  what  was  the  character  of 
the  relations  subsisting  between  the  officers  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  and  the  officers  of  the  United  States — friendly 
or  otherwise  ? 

Ans. — It  was  very  friendly  while  I  was  there. 

Cross-Examination. 

Int.  1. — Is  not  all  the  testimony  you  have  given  on  this 
matter  confined  to  your  personal  knoAvledge  there  in  the  year 
you  spent  there? 

Ans. — It  is. 

Int.  2. — Was  not  the  only  overflow  of  the  river  you  know 
anything  about  that  of  the  summer  of  1853? 

Ans. — Yes  sir,  cxcrspt  byhercsay. 

Int.  3. — Can  you,  say  then,  whether  the  country  you  saw 
then  overflowed  was  always  so  covered  by  water  or  not,  and 
are  your  remarks  as  to  overflowed  portions  of  the  claim  to  be 
based  on  that  year's  freshet? 

Ans. — The  amount  of  overflow  is  based  on  that  year's 
freshet,  and  I  simply  understood  Avhile  there  that  the  river 
overflowed  its  banks  every  season  at  about  the  same  season 
of  the  year.  The  diff'erence  of  one  foot  in  the  freshet  would 
have  made  a  great  difl'erence  in  the  amount  of  land  overflowed. 

Int.  4. — How  does  this  land,  subject  to  overfloAv,  compare 
wi'.h  that  not  overflowed  in  its  value  to  the  owner? 

Ans. — I  would  say  that  for  ordinary  farming  purposes  it 
.vould  have  almost  equal  value.  It  would  have  to  be  owned 
in  connection  with  land  not  subject  to  overflow. 

Int.  5.— Did  the  enclosed  land  you  got  from  the  Company 
for  cultivation  have  marks  over  its  whole  extent  of  culti- 
vation. 

Ans. — It  did. 

Int.  6.— Was  any  portion  of  this  enclosed  land  overflowed 
during  that  summer? 

Ans. — A  portion  of  it  was. 

Int.  7. — Did  you  in  these  rides  you  have  spoken  of  give  any 
attention  to  marks  of  boundaries  of  the  claim,  or  look  for 
any? 


22 


a 


55-' ;  |. 


.li'iit! 


i.  ■,<:! 


.  if  !Si 

■''!•:  i 
ii.  iji 


1^1! 


1     ^ 


-4ws. — I  gave  no  attention  to  it,  and  didn't  know  that  the 
Hudson  Bay  Company  pretended  to  any  special  boundaries. 

Int.  8. — Was  not  the  country  around  Vancouver  when  you 
were  tlicvc  to  a  great  degree  occupiud  by  settlers  claiming 
under  ihe  donation  law? 

Anf(. — I  presume  they  all  claimed  under  the  donation  law, 
so  I  understood  at  least.  It  was  partially  settled.  I  don't 
think  it  was  settled  to  a  great  degree.  I  mentioned  all  I 
recollected  below  Fort  Vancouver.  Above  and  back  on  the 
prairies,  before  described,  other  claims  were  taken.  Nye  set- 
tled while  I  was  there  stationed  at  Vancouver  just  above  the 
forty  or  fifty-acre  field  I  have  described. 

Inf.  0. — What  was  your  rank  in  the  army  of  the  United 
States  while  you  were  stationed  at  Fort  Vancouver,  and  with 
what  department  of  the  army  were  j^ou  connected? 

Ans. — I  was  first  lieutenant  and  brevet  captain  until  July, 
1853,  when  I  was  promoted  to  full  captain.  I  was  regimental 
quartermaster  whilst  at  Fort  Vancouver. 

Int.  10. — Was  there  not  a  large  building  outside  of  the 
stockades  and  enclosures  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at 
Vancouver  occupied  by  the  military  authorities,  for  which 
rent  was  paid  to  the  Company  ? 

*  Anii. — Rent  was  paid  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  for  a  large 
store-house,  but  my  impresion  is  that  it  was  inside  the  stock- 
ade. The  Company  had  quite  a  collection  of  houses  outside 
the  stockade. 

Int.  11. — Was  not  the  enclosed  field  of  forty  or  fifty  acres 
hired  by  you  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Vancouver  fer- 
tile and  productive  land  ? 

Ans. — It  was. 

Int.  12. — Is  your  'ecollection  so  distinct  as  to  enable  you 
to  give  any  estimate  whatever  of  the  amount  of  open  land  on 
the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  twenty-five  miles  on 
the  Columbia  river  by  eight  or  ten  miles  back? 

Ans. — I  cannot  give  an  estimate. 

U.  S.  Grant, 

Lieutenant  General. 

Washington  City,  D.  C,  May  8, 1866. 


23 


that  the 
claries, 
dicn  you 
claiming 

tion  law, 
I  don't 
icd  all  I 
k  on  the 
Nye  set- 
bove  the 

}  United 
and  with 

itil  July, 
gimental 

3  of  the 
pany  at 
>r  which 

r  a  large 
e  stock- 
outside 

ty  acres 
vcr  fer- 


ble  you 
land  on 
liles  on 


reneral. 


Testimony  of  James  W.  Nesmitii. 
James  W.  Msmith,  being  duly  sworn  according  to  law,  says  ; 

Inf.  1. — What  is  your  name,  age,  place  of  residence,  and 
present  occupation  ? 

^ns. — James  W.  Ncsmith,  aged  forty-five  years,  residence 
Polk  county,  Oregon,  occupation  farmer,  and  at  present  United 
States  Senator. 

Int.  2. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  post  at  Vancouver 
which  was  formerly  occupied  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  am. 

Int.  2. — When  did  you  first  become  acquainted  with  the  post, 
and  what  was  its  condition  when  you  first  saw  it? 

Ans. — The  first  time  I  was  there  was  the  23d  day  of  Octo- 
ber, 1843.  It  was  in  very  good  condition  when  I  first  saw  it, 
considering  tlie  character  and  structure  of  the  buildings  aiul 
the  materials  of  which  thev  were  made.  The  stockade  around 
the  buildings  was  made  of  fir  poles  sot  in  the  ground.  Many 
of  them  were  in  a  state  of  decav,  others  had  rotted  off  at  the 
surface  of  the  ground  and  had  been  replaced  by  new  ones. 
The  buildings  were  rather  a  coarse  rude  structure,  and  un- 
painted.  They  Avere  built  in  what  was  known  to  us  as  the 
Canadian  style,  with  posts  set  upright  and  slots  cut  in  the  posts 
in  which  timber  was  placed  to  fill  the  interstices  between  the 
posts.  That  is  a  character  of  building  which  is  not  durable, 
being  liable  to  be  wrecked  by  the  storm,  and  soon  decay.  The 
buildings  were  without  any  permanent  underpinning,  and  were 
set  upon  wooden  blocks,  many  of  which  were  in  a  state  of  de- 
cay, and  the  buildings  were  becoming  wrecked  and  dilapidated 
on  account  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  foundations.  There  was 
some  diff"erence  between  the  buildings.  I  think  the  house  in 
which  Dr.  McLauj'hlin  resided  and  the  buildin<x  used  for  an 
office — those  two  buildings  were  of  a  better  character  than  the 
store-houses.     I  think  they  were  painted. 

Int.  4. — Have  you  in  early  life  had  any  experience  in  the 
trade  of  a  carpenter,  and  have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  cost 
and  labor  of  erecting  buildings  of  such  a  character  as  you  have 


24 


iiiiiii 


described?  if  yea,  please  to  state  wiiat  in  your  judgment  is  the 
value  and  cost  of  erecting  such  buildings. 

A71S. — I  worked  at  the  carpenter's  business  when  I  was  a 
young  man.  The  value  of  the  buildings  I  could  not  state  for 
this  reason  :  In  the  first  place,  I  don't  know  how  many  buildings 
there  were  there,  and  the  value  I  would  give  oould  be  only  ap- 
proximate. I  could  not  testify  positively  as  to  the  size  of  the 
buildings.  They  were  generally  of  a  character  which  required 
very  little  mechanical  skill  in  their  erection,  and  might  have 
bQcn  built  by  the  commonest  kind  of  labor. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  seen  Vancouver  since  then  ;  if  yea,  when 
and  how  often  ? 

Am.— I  was  there  in  1844, 1845,  1840, 1848, 1849,  and  1852. 
In  1853  I  was  there  three  or  four  times ;  I  was  there  several 
times  in  1850 ;  I  was  there  in  1860  several  times  ;  I  was  there 
in  18G1 ;  and  I  was  there  three  times  last  year,  1865. 

Int.  6. — Please  to  look  at  the  map  here  produced  and  des- 
cribe the  lands  which  were  enclosed  and  occupied  by  the  Com- 
pany in  the  neighborhood  of  this  post  at  the  time  you  first 
visited  it? 

Ans. — My  knoAvledge  is  not  sufiiciently  definite  to  designate 
that.  In  my  visits  there  I  never  went  over  their  farms  or  en- 
closed lands.  I  know  there  were  some  lands  enclosed  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  fort  and  below  the  fort  on  the  river,  the 
exact  quantity  or  location  of  which  I  am  unable  to  state. 

Int.  7. — Please  to  describe  as  fully  as  you  can  the  ap- 
pearance and  condition  of  the  buildings  at  this  post  occupied 
by  the  Company  as  you  found  them  from  time  to  time  as  com- 
pared with  what  they  were  in  1843,  giving  their  condition 
particularly  as  fully  as  you  can  in  1863  and  1846,  or  as  near 
to  these  respective  periods  as  you  can. 

Ans. — The  buildings  for  a  few  years  after  my  first  visit  were 
kept  in  repair  and  remained  in  about  the  same  condition  as 
when  I  first  saw  them,  with  the  exception  of  the  natural  decay 
and  injury  they  had  undergone  through  the  effects  of  the 
weather.  For  the  last  ten  or  twelve  years  they  have  gone  to 
decay  very  rapidly,  and  when  I  was  there  last  j^ear,  the  build- 
ings and  the  stockade  had  nearly   all  rotted  away  and  fallen 


nent  is  the 

n  I  was  a 
t  state  for 
^  buildings 
)e  only  ap- 
iize  of  the 
h  required 
ight  have 

yea,  when 


and  1852. 

re  several 

was  there 

5. 

lI  and  des- 

the  Com- 

you  first 

designate 

■ms  or  en- 

sed  in  the 

;','• 

river,  the 

state. 

n  the  ap- 

-■■>iv. 

oecupied 

'\-:ii: 

10  as  corn- 

condition 

)r  as  near 

',■■■'' 

visit  were 

iidition  as 

';.-;f» 

ral  decay 

■Ay': 

ts  of   the 

'$". 

^e  gone  to 

the  build- 

md  fallen 

^■rs 

25 

down  ;  what  remained  standing  was  in  a  very  dilapidated  con- 
dition. 

Int.  S. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  value  of  land  at 
Vancouver;  if  yea,  what  in  your  judgment  is  the  value  per 
acre  of  the  land  at  this  post,  including  say  a  mile  S(iuare  on 
the  river,  which  is  claimed  by  the  Catholic  Mission. 

Anf<. — The  town  of  A'^ancouvcr  is  embraced  in  this  mile- 
square  to  which  you  refer.  My  knowledge  of  the  value  of  lots 
in  the  town  and  the  adjacent  property  is  not  sufficiently  defi- 
nite to  enable  me  to  testify  with  certainty  on  that  point. 

Inf.  J). — What  is  the  present  condition  of  the  town  of  Van- 
couver, and  how  does  it  compare  in  regard  to  trade  and  pros- 
perity witli  its  condition  five  years  since? 

Ans. — When  I  was  there  last  year  I  noticed  but  very  little 
improvement  in  the  place.  It  did  not  bear  evidence  of  much 
enterprise  or  business.  If  there  has  been  any  improvement 
in  the  last  five  years  it  has  been  very  slight. 

Int.  10. — Has  there  been  any  considerable  groAvth  in  this 
place  for  the  last  five  years,  and  in  your  judgment  is  it  prob- 
able that  it  will  increase  very  rapidly  for  some  years  to  come? 

(All  the  portion  referring  to  the  judgment  of  the  witness 
objected  to.) 

Ans. — There  has  not  been  any  considerable  growth  in  the 
last  five  years.     Considering  its  commercial  and  geographical" 
position,  and  the  character  and  the  resources  of  the  surround- 
ing country,  I  do  not  believe  that  there  will  be  any  great  im- 
provement for  many  years  to  come. 

Jnt.  11. — Have  you  or  not  paid  particular  attention  to  the 
course  of  trade  for  some  years  in  Oregon  and  Washington 
Territory,  and  are  you  not  familiar  with  the  general  character 
and  condition  of  the  principal  places  in  this  State  and  Terri- 
tory ? 

(The  latter  part  of  the  question  objected  to  as  leading.) 
Ans. — I  have  paid  a  good  deal  of  attention  to  the  course  of 
trade  and  commerce  in  Oregon  and  Washington  for  the  last 
few  year=i,  and  think  that  I  have  a  pretty  good  general  know- 
ledge on  that  subject,  and  am  familiar  with  the  general  char- 


26 


;!. 


acter  and  condition  of  the  principal  places  in  the  State  and 
Territory. 

Ini.  12. — What,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  principal  cause  of 
the  establishment  and  growth  of  the  town  of  Vancouver  here- 
toforc  ? 

A7)s. — I  think  the  principal  cause  of  the  growth  of  the  town 
was  the  establishment  of  the  military  post  there  .  nd  the  depot 
for  the  army  supplies  for  that  country.  That  brought  com- 
merce to  the  place;  ships  laden  with  Government  supplies. 
Many  persons  congregated  there  for  the  purpose  of  procuring 
Government  employment,  which,  together  with  the  presence 
of  the  soldiers,  caused  some  little  trade  to  spring  up  there. 

Int.  1.3. — What  is  the  present  prosperity  of  the  town  of 
Portland,  in  Oregon,  and  how,  in  your  judgment,  does  its  in- 
terests and  welfare  affect  the  question  of  the  possibility  of 
building  up  a  flourishing  town  at  Vancouver? 

(Objected  to  as  to  Portland  auu  as  to  the  judgmeut  of  the 
witness.) 

Ans. — Portland  is,  and  has  been,  for  the  last  six  or  seven 
years,  in  a  very  flourishing  condition,  and  very  rapidly  im- 
proving. It  is  the  emporium  of  commerce  and  crarde  for  nearly 
all  of  Oregon,  all  eastern  Washington,  and  a  large  portion  of 
Idaho,  and  portions  of  Montana.  The  lines  of  ships  and 
steamers  are  owned  there.  The  great  wealth  and  present  im- 
portance of  the  place  is  sufficient,  in  my  opinion,  to  prevent 
any  town  of  consequence  being  built  up  in  so  close  proximity  - 
as  Vancouver. 

Int.  14. — Have  you  ever  visited  or  observed  any  of  the  other 
posts  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company?  if  yea,  please  to  enu- 
merate the  different  posts  which  you  have  seen  and  observed. 

Ans. — I  have  been  at  Fort  Hall,  Fort  Boise,  Fort  Walla- 
Walla,  Astoria,  Nisqually,  the  Cowlitz,  and  Champoog. 

Int.  15. — When  did  you  see  Fort  Hall,  and  what  was  its 
condition  when  you  saw  it?  please  to  describe  the  same  as 
particularly  as  you  can,  the  character  and  condition  of  the 
fort  and  the  buildings,  and  their  value,  if  you  feel  competent 
to  state  it. 

Ans. — I  never  saw  Fort  Hall  but  once.     I  stopped  there 


4 


27 


e  State  and 

pal  cause  of 
couver  here- 

i  of  the  town 
k1  the  depot 
rouglit  corn- 
lit  sup])lie3. 
)f  procuring 
lie  presence 
up  there, 
he  town  of 
does  its  in- 
)ssibility  of 

neut  of  the 

X  or  seven 

■apidly  im- 

for  nearly 

portion  of 

ships    and 

)resent  im- 

to  prevent 

proximity  . 

f  the  other 
50  to  c'nu- 
obsorved. 
rt  Walla- 
>cg, 

it  was  its 
same  aa 
)n  of  the 
ompetent 

)od  there 


four  or  five  days  in  the  autumn  of  1843.  It  was  then  rather 
a  rude  structure,  built  of  adobe,  walled  in  with  adobe,  and 
within  were  some  rude  buildings  of  the  same,  covered  with 
poles  and  dirt,  the  whole  very  rude  and  cheaply  built.  There 
was  no  lumber  there  of  any  kind,  sawed  or  hewn.  They  could 
have  been  built  by  the  rudest  of  labor;  no  skill  was  required 
in  their  construction.  It  was  a  mere  mixing  of  mud  to  make 
adobes,  and  piling  them  up.  At  reasonable  prices  of  labor, 
such  as  existed  in  the  country  at  the  time,  I  should  think  Fort 
Hall,  as  I  saw  it  in  1843,  could  have  been  built  for  one  thousand 
dollars. 

Int.  IG. — Did  you  observe  at  that  time  any  lands  there  which 
were  enclosed  and  cultivated  by  the  Company  ?  If  yea,  please 
to  describe  their  character  and  extent. 

Alls. — I  did  not  observe  "ny  lands  there  enclosed  or  culti- 
vated. Indeed,  I  do  not  thlniv  ihere  were  any  at  that  time,  as 
our  party  could  not  get  vegetables  or  supplies.  Mr.  Grant, 
who  was  in  charge,  told  us  they  raised  nothing  there. 

Int.  17. — Please  to  state  when  you  visited  Fort  Boise ;  and 
describe  the  character  and  condition  of  the  fort  and  buildings 
and  lands  which  were  occupied  by  the  Company  when  you  saw 
them. 

Am. — I  visited  Fort  Boise  in  the  autumn  of  1843,  on  my 
way  down  to  Oregon.  Its  condition  was  about  the  same  as  that 
of  Fort  Hall.  The  buildings  were  of  about  the  same  character, 
and  of  about  the  same  value.  There  was  a  small  piece  of 
ground  enclosed  there  with  a  pole  fence,  of,  perhaps,  two  or 
three  acres — there  might  have  been  five — in  which  they 
attempted  to  raise  a  few  vegetables ;  but  they  did  not  amount 
to  anything.  I  saw  them  digging  potatoes  there.  They  were 
not  bigger  than  bullets. 

Int.  18. — Has  anything  occurred  since  then  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  mining  or  agricultural  resources,  in  the  settlement 
of  the  country,  which  has  given  any  expressed  new  value  to 
the  site  of  either  Fort  Hall  or  Fort  Boise  ? 

An%. — Nothing  has  occurred  to  enhance  their  value  since 
then..  Pretty  conclusive  evidence  of  this  is  that,  as  I  am 
informed,  they  have  both  been  abandoned. 


28 


Int.  19. — When  did  you  see  Walla-Walla  ?  Please  to  describe 
the  character  and  condition  of  the  fort  and  the  buildings  and 
tlic  lands  and  the  value  thereof  as  occupied  by  the  Company 
at  this  post  when  you  last  saw  them. 

Am. — I  first  saw  Walla-Walla  in  October,  1843.  Ii  then 
consisted  of  a  stockade,  built  of  adobe  or  sun-dried  brick,  with 
a  few  buildinj^s  inside,  of  the  same  material.  It  was  more  sub- 
stantial and  better  constructed  than  either  Fort  Hall  or  Fort 
Boise.  I  should  think  it  might  cost  a  couple  of  th'^usand 
dollars  to  have  built  Walla- Walla  at  the  time  I  saw  it.  It  was 
nearly  new  then.  I  encamped  four  or  five  days  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  fort,  and  was  there  every  day.  I  saw  no  lands 
in  its  neighborhood  enclosed  or  cultivated.  It  was  a  desert 
and  a  sand  bank,  the  sand  hills  blowing  about.  I  liave  been 
in  the  neighborhood  several  times,  but  only  once  at  the  post. 

Int.  20. — Whore  is  this  post  situated ;  and  lo  this  place  of 
any  considerable  value  or  importance  as  a  commercial  point  ? 

Ans. — It  is  situated  on  the  south  bank  of  the  Columbia 
river,  near  the  line  between  Oregon  and  Washington.  I  have 
understood  that  there  is  a  little  town,  since  grown  up,  either 
in  the  neighborhood,  or  directly  at  the  post  called  Wallula,  at 
which  goods  and  supplies  have  been  landed  for  the  present 
town  of  Walla- Walla,  and  other  points  in  the  interior. 

Int.  21. — From  your  knowledge  of  the  situation  of  this  place 
w^ith  reference  to  the  trade  of  the  river  and  the  surrounding 
country,  and  the  discovery  of  mines  in  the  interior,  do  you 
anticipate  the  growth  of  any  considerable  town  here  at  present  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  think  that  there  will  ever  be  a  large  town 
there.  There  are  other  points  on  the  river  more  valuable. 
When  I  was  there  last  summer  the  greater  part  of  the  supplies 
were  being  landed  at  Umatilla,  which  is  some  distance  below 
Wallula.     There  is  a  better  route  to  the  interior  from  Umatilla. 

Int.  22. — When  have  you  seen  the  post  at  Champoeg  ?  Please 
to  describe  the  character  and  condition  and  value  of  the  same 
when  you  saw  it. 

Ans. — The  first  time  I  saw  Champoeg  was  in  1844.  I  have 
seen  it  very  often  since,  passing  up  and  down  the  river.  My 
recollection  of  it  is  that  there  was  a  small  dwelling-house,  a 


29 

granary,  and  a  small  store.  They  were  all  cheap,  rough 
buikliii,i,'S.  I  should  think  the  buildings,  as  I  recollect  them, 
might  have  been  put  up  for  one  thousand  or  fifteen  hundred 
dollars.  The  land  is  not  valuable.  I  believe  everything  was 
washed  away  from  there  two  or  three  years  ago. 

Int.  23. — Is  Champoeg  a  place  of  any  trade  or  prospective 
importance,  in  your  judgment,  in  the  future  growth  or  pros- 
perity of  Oregon  ? 

Ans. — None  whatever,  I  think. 

Int.  24. — When  did  you  visit  and  observe  the  buildings  and 
lands  occupied  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Astoria,  and 
please  to  describe  their  condition  and  character  and  value  at 
the  time  you  saw  them,  as  fully  as  you  can  ? 

Ann. — 1  visited  Astoria  in  August,  1844.  There  were  then 
at  that  place  two  or  three  old  buildings,  one  of  which  was  a 
dwelling-house,  in  which  the  person  in  charge  resided;  the 
other  was  a  salmon  or  store-house.  There  was  also  a  small 
patch  of  ground  enclosed.  I  think  three  or  four  buildings 
.comprised  the  whole;  they  were  very  old  and  dilapidated.  It 
is  pretty  hard  to  tell  what  an  old  rotten  building  is  worth. 
They  might  have  been  worth  one  hundred  or  two  hundred  dol- 
lars. I  <lon't  consider  them  of  any  value.  In  connection  with 
this,  I  might  say,  that  there  had  been  a  post  of  considerable 
extent  at  one  time,  but  it  had  all  rotted  down.  A  man  by  the 
name  of  John  McClure  look  up  a  '•Iniin  directly  below  the  fort, 
and  may  have  included  the  fort.  In  1849  there  were  three  or 
four  houses  on  his  land.  Since  then  a  village  has  sprung  up 
below  there.  In  1861  I  think  there  was  the  remains  of  one 
old  building  at  the  Hudson's  Bay  Post. 

Int.  25. — From  your  knowledge  of  the  course  of  trade,  and 
of  the  character  and  resources  of  the  country,  do  you  antici- 
pate the  growth  of  any  considerable  town  at  this  place  ? 

Ans. — If  the  system  of  disembarking  goods  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Columbia  is  adopted,  Astoria  will  become  a  considerable 
town. 

hit.  26, — Have  you  ever  seen  and  visited  the  place  claimed 
by  the  Hudson  Bay  Company  at  Cape  Disappointment?   if 


30 


■  Jv 


■41 


yen,  please  to  describe  its  condition  and  character  and  value 
when  you  saw  it. 

Ann. — I  was  ashore  at  Capo  Disappointment  in  the  spring 
of  184U.  Staid  there  a  day.  I  passed  in  and  out  of  the  river 
several  times  since,  and  never  saw  anything  there  except  some 
Indian  huts.  Tliero  was  a  light-house  and  a  building  or  two, 
belonging  [to]  some  Pacific  City  people.  I  speak  now  in  ref 
erencc  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Int.  27. — Is  this  point  at  Cape  Disappointment  now,  or  has 
it  ever  been  of  any  value,  in  your  judgment^  as  a  place  of  trade 
with  the  Indiatis  or  other  persons ;  and  in  what,  in  your 
opinion,  if  anything,  does  its  value  consist? 

Ans. — It  never  has  been  a  place  of  any  considerable  trade, 
to  my  knowledge.  If  it  has  any  value,  it  is  for  a  site  for  a 
light-house  and  fortifications  for  the  Government.  I  know  of 
no  other  value. 

Int.  28. — How  long  have  you  been  in  Oregon,  and  how  long 
have  you  been  a  member  of  the  United  States  Senate  ? 

Ans. — I   went  to  Oregon  in  1843,  and  that  has  been  my  , 
residence  over  since.     I  took  my  seat  in  the  United  States 
Senate  the  4th  of  March,  1861. 

Int.  29. — Do  you  know  anything  respecting  the  trade  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  with  the  Indians,  and  has  the  same 
increased  or  diminished  with  the  Indians  before  they  aban- 
doned the  country. 

Ans. — They  had  quite  an  extensive  trade  with  the  Indians 
when  I  first  went  there.  Without  having  any  positive  knowl- 
edge derived  from  their  books,  I  think  their  fur  trade  had 
diminished  a  great  deal  before  they  abandoned  their  posts  and 
left  the  country. 

Int.  30. — State,  if  you  know,  what  was  the  character  of  the 
principal  business  of  the  Company  at  Vancouver  for  the  most 
of  the  time  subsequent  to  your  residence  there? 

Ans. — On  my  arrival  there,  and  for  several  years  subse- 
quent, their  principal  trade  was  with  the  Indians.  As  the 
country  gradually  settled  up,  my  impression  is  their  Indian 
trade  gradually  subsided,  and  the  trade  with  the  whites  very 
much  increased.     They  sold  very  many  goods  to  the  settlers. 


31 


your 


Int.  81. — Do  you  know  the  extent  of  tlie  foreign  commerce 
of  the  Company  while  you  were  there?  If  yea,  please  to 
(lescrihe  the  number  of  foreign  rhips  and  vessels  that  yearly 
arrived  from  abroad  at  Vancouver  on  account  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company. 

Ann. — My  knowledge  on  the  subject  is  substantially  this:  I 
know  there  was  a  ship  arrived  there  annually  from  England 
with  supplies  for  the  Company;  that  ships  took  back  their 
furs,  peltries,  and  such  articles  as  they  shipped  out  of  the 
country.  In  addition  to  that,  they  had  small  vessels,  Avhich 
traded  with  some  of  the  Russian  settlements  in  the  northwest, 
and  I  think  with  California.  They  shipped  a  great  deal  of 
wheat  and  other  productions  to  the  Russian  settlements  to  the 
north.  They  also  had  some  trade  v/ith  California  and  the 
Sandwich  Islands.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  the  amount  or 
value  of  their  trade. 

Int.  32. — Have  you  held  any  public  offices  or  positions  prior 
to  your  election  as  United  States  Senator?  If  yea,  please  to 
describe  them. 

Ans. — Yes,  I  have  held  several.  In  1845  I  was  a  judge 
under  the  Provisional  Government.  In  1846  and  1847  I  was 
a  member  of  the  Legislature.  In  1847  I  commanded  a  com- 
pany in  the  Indian  war.  In  1853  I  was  appointed  United 
States  marshal  for  the  Territory  of  Oregon.  In  same  year 
I  commanded  a  company  in  Rogue  Rivei  war.  In  1854  I  was 
brigadier  general  of  the  Oregon  militia.  In  1855  I  com- 
manded a  regiment  of  volunteers  in  the  Indian  war.  In  1857 
I  was  superintendent  of  Indian  affairs  for  Oregon  and  Wash- 
ington, and  held  that  office  until  1859.  That  was  the  last 
office  I  held  until  I  came  to  the  United  States  Senate. 

Int.  33. — You  have  stated  that  you  were  a  superintendent 
of  the  Indian  aff"airs.  Do  you  know  the  effect  of  the  trade 
and  intercourse  with  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  on  their  phys- 
ical and  social  condition?  If  yea,  please  to  describe  it  as 
fully  as  you  can. 

Ans. — So  far  as  the  intercourse  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany with  the  Indian  is  concerned,  I  think  their  policy  is  the 
best  that  was  ever  adopted,  that  is  with  reference  to  the  wants 


1 1'- '. 


41 


and  interest  of  the  Indian.  They  operated  upon  his  interest 
and  Ills  fears.  So  far  as  T  know  they  administered  very  strict 
justice.  They  had  a  tariff' of  prices,  and  they  paid  one  Indian 
tlio  same  as  they  paid  another  for  whateverhe  had  to  dispose  of. 
They  encouraged  sobriety  and  good  conduct  among  tiie  Indians, 
and  whf'ii  tlie  Indians  committed  outrages  they  punished  them. 
Their  ])unishmcnt  was  not  that  of  a  great  military  expedition, 
but  thev  cut  off  their  trade,  and  made  the  Indian  feel  h'  de- 
pcndeneo  upon  them.  They  were  an  immense  monop  ,,  and 
kept  out  individual  enterprise  and  trade  from  tin  .ndians. 
While  they  held  that  power  they  compelled  the  .ndians  to 
submit  to  their  own  terms.  In  the  absence  o^  any  competi- 
tion it  was  within  their  power  to  do  this.  They  punished  their 
own  employes  for  infractions  against  the  rights  of  the 
Indians;  and  so  far  as  I  know  their  contract  with  the  Indians 
did  not  tend  to  demoralize  or  degrade  them.  The  inculca- 
tion of  sobriety  and  temperance  by  the  Company  resulted  in 
its  own  benefit,  that  is,  to  the  benefit  of  the  Company,  be- 
cause while  the  Indian  practised  those  virtues  he  had  more  to 
sell,  and  therefore  increased  the  trade  of  the  Company.  The 
power  of  the  Company  to  keep  out  privateer  foreign  competi- 
tion gave  them  the  exclusive  control  of  the  Indians.  The 
Indians  looked  to  the  Company  as  a  government  and  a  power. 
During  their  occupancy  of  the  country  there  was  little  or  no 
intrusion  upon  the  Indian  lands.  The  Indians  retained  the 
sites  of  their  villages,  fisheries,  and  hunting  grounds;  conse- 
quently they  did  not  diminish  in  numbers  as  they  did  after 
the  country  was  thrown  open  to  general  and  promiscuous 
occupation. 

After  the  power  of  the  Company  to  control  the  intercourse 
between  the  Indiisiis  and  the  whites  had  ceased,  I  should  say 
about  1846  or  1847,  the  Indians  began  gradually  to  diminish 
by  reason  of  their  promiscuous  contact  with  the  whites. 
"While  the  Company  enforced  a  rigid  control  over  them,  I  do 
not  know  of  their  having  done  the  Indians  any  injustice.  The 
presence  of  this  powerful  monopoly  in  the  country  exercised 
a  deleterious  influence  against  the  United  States  in  controlling 
the  Indians.     In  those  remote  regions  the  Indians  were  more 


33 


'  The 

jrcised 

rolling 

more 


in  the  habit  of  recognizing  the  power  of  the  Company  than 
tlicy  were  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  So  far  as 
my  knowledge  extends  in  regard  to  their  social  condition,  I 
don't  think  their  eft'orts  extended  so  much  in  the  direction  of 
civilizing  the  Indian  as  it  did  in  keeping  him  in  a  position 
where  the  greatest  benefits  could  be  derived  in  a  trade  with 
him  as  a  hunter  and  trapper.  A  great  many  of  the  employes, 
and  some  of  the  officers  of  the  Company,  intermarried  with 
the  Indian  women.  The  children,  the  result  of  this  connec- 
tion, Avere,  in  many  instances,  educated  in  the  schools  under 
the  patronage  of  the  Company. 

Int.  34. — What  was  the  effect  of  the  policy  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  on  the  development  and  settlement  of  the  coun- 
try, favorable  or  otherwise? 

Ans. — I  think  the  policy  of  the  Company  was  adverse  to 
the  sett'oment  of  the  country.  I  infer  this  from  remarks 
made  by  the  officers  of  the  Company  to  myself  and  other  early 
emigrants,  as  they  invariably  under-estimated  the  quality  of 
the  soil  and  the  inducements  for  settlement,  and  advised  the 
early  settlers  generally  to  go  to  California.  This  probably 
resulted  from  the  fact  that  the  settling  nf  the  country  must 
inevitably  destroy  their  trade  with  and  their  control  over  the 
Indian  tribes.  Upon  the  whole  I  think  that  the  Company 
were  very  much  averse  to  the  occupation  of  the  country  by 
American  citizens. 

Int.  35. — From  what  period  do  you  date  the  emigration 
from  the  States  and  the  settlement  of  the  country  by  Ameri- 
can citizens? 

Ans. — The  first,  and  a  very  small  emigration,  crossed  the 
mountains  in  1842.  In  1843  an  emigration  started  from  the 
western  frontier,  consisting  of  one  hundred  and  eleven  wagons, 
containing  probably  between  four  and  five  hundred  men, 
women,  and  children,  of  which  party  I  was  one.  The  emigra. 
gration  has  continued  from  that  time  to  the  present. 
3C 


84 


Cross- Examination. 


J! 


i' 


m 


«i, 


Int.  1. — What  length  of  time  were  you  at  Vancouver  in 
1843,  1844,  1845,  and  1846? 

Ans. — In  1843  I  was  there  about  a  day.  In  1844  I  was 
there  three  or  four  days,  perhaps  a  week,  I  don't  recollect.  I 
wasn't  three  more  than  two  or  three  days  in  1845.  I  would 
go  there  and  stay  all  night,  not  more  than  two  or  three  days 
in  all.  I  don't  think  I  was  there  more  than  once  in  1846, 
though  I  might  have  been  there  oftener. 

Int.  2. — What  examination  did  you  make  of  the  buildings 
at  the  fort  at  either  of  those  times  ? 

Ans. — The  first  time  I  was  there  I  examined  them  more 
particularly  than  I  did  afterwards.  The  place  was  new  to  me. 
I  had  heard  a  good  deal  of  it,  and  I  looked  at  it  pretty  thor- 
oughly. My  object  was  to  write  a  description  of  it  (which  I 
did)  to  send  back  to  some  friends  in  the  United  States. 

Int.  3. — Did  you  notice  the  buildings  sufficiently  at  the 
time  you  speak  of  to  tell  how  many  of  them  were  frame,  how 
many  of  Canadian  pattern,  which  of  them  were  lined  and 
ceiled  and  which  were  not? 

Ans. — I  think  that  all  the  buildings  were  of  Canadian  pat- 
tern except  the  office  and  house  that  Dr.  McLaughlin  lived  in. 
That  was  my  impression.  They,  I  think,  were  ceiled  and 
painted. 

Int.  4. — Can  you  say  that  six  of  these  buildings  were  not 
lined  and  ceiled? 

Ans. — I  couldn't  say  that  positively.  I  never  was  in  six  of 
them  that  were  lined  and  ceiled.  I  think  the  office  and  Dr. 
McLaughlin's  house  were  the  only  ones. 

Int.  5. — Can  the  commonest  kind  of  labor  build  frame 
houses,  line  and  ceil  them,  or  does  it  require  skilled  labor  for 
that  purpose? 

Ans. — The  character  of  the  Iiouses  they  had  there,  lined 
and  ceiled,  would  require  very  little  skill  to  do  it.  They  were 
very  ordinarily  constructed.  The  doctor's  house  and  the 
office  were  the  best  buildings  there,  and  any  man,  with  any 


35 


vcr  in 

I:  I  was 
ect.  I 
'.  would 
)c  tlays 
n  1846, 

lildings 

n  more 
yr  to  me. 
ty  thor- 
which  I 

). 
at  the 
lie,  how 
led  and 

ian  pat- 
ived  in. 
ed  and 

rerc  not 

in  six  of 
and  Dr. 

d  frame 
abor  for 

re,  lined 
ley  were 
and  the 
ith  any 


knowledge  of  the  use  of  tools,  could  build  them.  Tiioy  would 
be  called  very  rude  in  a  civilized  country. 

Int.  G. — What  time  of  the  year  in  1843  were  you  there? 

Alls. — I  was  there  on  the  23d  day  of  October,  I'^lo:  staid 
all  night  there.     Was  there  part  of  two  days,  23d  ;i.,ii  24th. 

Int.  7. — At  the  dift'erent  times  you  Avore  at  the  foit,  hcfore 
and  during  1846,  did  you  notice  any  building  or  repairing  of 
buildings  going  on,  or  any  renewal  of  the  stockade: 

Ans. — I  don't  think  I  saw  any  repairing  of  buihliiigs  going 
on.  I  saw  some  evidence  of  repairing  the  stockade,  and  per- 
haps of  the  buildings. 

Int.  S. — Can  you  say  that  between  1848  and  1  •  IG  there 
were  not  two,  if  not  three,  large  and  important  imiblings 
erected  within  the  stockade,  in  place  of  others  talc  in  down 
during  that  time,  besides  a  block-house  or  bastion,  iiiounting 
seven  or  eight  guns,  on  the  northwest  corner  of  the  .toekade? 

Ans. — I  cannot.  I  recollect  an  old  bastion  on  iin-  north- 
west corner  of  the  stockade,  but  don't  remember  uny  new 
one. 

Int.  9. — Would  you  say  that  in  1846  there  wa-;  a  single 
picket  in  the  stockade  rotten  or  out  of  place? 

Ans. — They  were  always  kept  up.  The  Company  never 
permitted  them  to  fall  down.  In  explanation  of  liis  I  will 
say,  the  fir  timber,  of  which  the  pickets  were  made  and  the 
stockade  was  built,  would  rot  off  at  the  surface  of  the  ground 
in  four  or  five  years,  and  there  might  have  been  soiiiu  in  that 
condition  at  that  time,  though  I  am  not  positive. 

Ir.t.  10. — When  a  picket  is  thoroughly  barked  ami  charred 
before  putting  it  into  the  ground,  does  it  not  hist  much 
longer? 

Ans. — I  never  saw  it  tried;  that  is,  a  fir  picket.  I  have 
seen  )ak  tried,  but  don't  know  the  effect. 

Int  11. — Were  not  all  these  pickets  thoroughly  bui  ked  and 
chaired  at  one  end,  and  were  any  of  them  of  a  less  size  than 
from  eight  to  ten  inches  in  diameter,  and  was  not  this  whole 
stockade  renewed  before  1846  ? 

Ans. — If  they  were  barked  and  charred,  it  was  the  end  in 
the  ground  and  out  of  sight.     I  couldn't  say  positively  as  to 


ti 


jrH 


36 


I       "I.. 


i 


the  size.  My  impression  is  they  ranged  from  eight  to  ten 
inches.  I  couldn't  state  positively  with  regard  to  the  renewal 
of  the  stockade.     I  know  that  new  posts  or  poles  were  i)ut  in. 

Int.  12. — What  was  the  size  of  the  enclosure  of  the  stock- 
ade at  Fort  A^ancouver  in  1846? 

Aiis. — I  couldn't  state  with  any  degree  e^  certainty.  My 
impression  Avas  that  it  was  about  six  hundred  feet  long,  and 
about  four  hundred  feet  wide. 

Int.  13. — Can  you  say  that  the  enclosure  of  the  fort  was 
not  considerably  enlarged  between  1843  and  1846? 

Ans. — I  cannot. 

Int.  14. — Could  not  these  blocks  that  you  spoke  of,  under 
the  buildings,  be  removed,  and  others  substituted  in  their 
place,  at  pleasure;  and  were  not  the  buildings  C/n«!'"red 
for  the  purpose  of  having  these  supports  change'.  1-  ..A 
that  the  way  in  which  houses,  stores,  and  even  large  build- 
ings, like  churches,  are  built  in  Washington  Territory? 

Ans. — I  have  seen  them  built  that  way.  The  blocks  on  the 
outside  could  be  removed;  but  it  was  very  difficult  to  remove 
those  inside,  unless  the  building  stood  very  high.  Some  of 
them  were  very  low.  It  would  wreck  the  building  to  pry  it 
up  to  remove  the  blocks.  I  have  seen  buildings  built  that 
way.     That  is  very  common. 

Int.  15. — Is  there  any  difficulty  in  raising  these  buildings 
by  jack-screws? 

Ans. — They  can  be  raised  in  that  way. 

Int.  16. — Would  not  good  cedar  or  oak  blocks  last  a  long 
time,  before  being  renewed,  and  where  stone  is  scarce,  is  ii 
not  both  usual  and  convenient  to  use  blocks? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  17. — Would  not  the  fact  that  these  buildings  were 
raised  by  these  blocks  from  contact  with  the  ground  keep  the 
main  building  from  decay? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  certainly  it  would  prevent  it  decaying  if 
the  blocks  w  ere  kept  renewed. 

Int.  18. — Did  you  ever  build  any  of  these  Canadian  bull  ! 
ings,  or  have  you  ever  examined  so  as  to  know  how  they  arc 
fastened  together,  and  what  their  strength  is  ? 


37 


Ans. — I  never  l)uilt  any  in  the  Canadian  stvlc.  I  have 
frequently  examined  them,  and  know  tlie  strength  of  their 
construction. 

Int.  19. — You  have  stated  that  within  the  Last  ten  or  twelve 
vears  those  buildinfjs  have  gone  to  decay.  Do  you  feel  certain 
that  those  buildings  were  not  in  gooil  order  in  18r)o,  1850, 
1858,  when  vou  were  there? 

Ans. — They  were  in  a  condition  to  be  occupied  in  1855  and 
1856.  They  had  gone  very  much  to  ruin,  and  were  in  much 
worse  condition  than  when  I  first  saw  them. 

Int.  20. — Was  the  house  of  the  chief  factor  out  of  repair 
when  you  came  there,  in  1856;  and  were  there  any  better 
houses  in  Oregon  at  that  time:  if  out  of  repair  what  was 
wantinjT? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  the  house  was  really  out  of  repair* 
It  was  a  good  deal  older  and  moie  dilapidated  than  when  I 
first  saw  it.  There  were  a  great  many  better  houses  in  Oregon 
at  that  time. 

Int.  21. — Were  not  all  the  buildings  inside  the  fort  in  1846, 
when  you  were  there,  shingled  buildings? 

Ans. — I  think  they  were. 

Int.  22. — Willi  the  exception  of  the  want  of  paint,  what  was 
there  wrong  in  the  store-houses  and  dwellings  inside  the  fort, 
when  you  were  there,  in  1850.  Were  they  not  water-tight, 
and  answering  all  the  purposes  for  which  they  were  erected  in 
former  years? 

Ans. — I  noticed  that  a  good  many  of  the  buildings,  from 
the  giving  way  of  foundations  and  rotting  away  of  blocks,  had 
settled,  and  left  the  buildings  out  of  shape.  Some  of  them 
were  in  that  condition  in  1856. 

Int.  23. — Is  not  Clarke  county,  of  which  Vancouver  is  the 
county  seat,  one  of  the  largest,  if  not  the  largest,  county  in 
Washington  Territory,  in  point  of  actual  population,  independ- 
ent of  the  soldiers  of  the  garrison? 

Ans. — I  couldn't  state  that  positively.  I  don't  know  the 
boundaries  of  the  county,  or  the  population.  It  is  very  pos- 
sible that  it  is. 

Int.  24. — Have  you  not  known  of  the  ocean  steamers  being 


38 


•1 .  .„'  Ill 


jm 


l'-:,,,!!*-! 


i.  :■.:; 


!'.^  '.III"-. 


ill  i  ! 


iji! 


dctainc'l  on  the  bar,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Willamette  river, 
and  on  Swan  Island  bar,  for  several  days  at  a  time,  and  could 
not  the  s;iinc  vessels  have  gone  on  to  Fort  A'ancouvcr? 

An«. — F  have.  I  think  the  same  vessels  could  have  gone  on 
to  Vanc'iuvor. 

Int.  2"). — Does  not  all  the  freight  that  passes  up  the  Colum- 
bia rivei"  from  abroad  have  to  be  carried  some  distance  out  of 
its  course,  to  pass  through  Portland,  in  going  to  the  mines? 

Ajif!. — It  docs. 

Int.  2(i. — At  what  ^.me  of  the  year  were  you  at  Fort  Hall  ? 

A)if<. — I  think  it  was  in  the  early  part  of  September,  1843. 
I  can  r     '  ■  positively  the  day. 

Int.  —How  long  Avere  you  in  coming  there  from  the 

frontier  oi  the  Western  States? 

Alls. — About  four  months,  I  think.  We  came  very  slowly 
in  the  ox  wagons. 

Int.  28, — How  many  men  were  there  in  your  company? 

Ans. — I  could  not  state  the  number  of  men.  There  were 
one  hundred  and  eleven  wagons,  and  in  the  neighborhood  of 
four  bundled  men,  women,  and  children. 

Int.  21). — Did  you  bring  your  provisions  with  you,  or  did 
you  subsist  on  what  you  obtained  on  the  plains? 

Alls. — We  brought  the  most  of  our  provisions  with  us.  We 
killed  a  great  deal  of  game. 

Int.  30. — -.Were  the  men  in  your  expedition  armed;  or  did 
you  travel  unarmed  and  defenceless? 

Ans. — We  were  well  armed. 

Int.  31. — How  long  were  you  in  going  from  Fort  Hall,  and 
did  you  go  there  by  land  or  by  water? 

Ans. — I  think  we  were  about  six  weeks  on  the  road.  Our 
animals  were  very  much  worn  down,  and  we  travelled  very 
slowly.  I  went  from  the  Dalles  down  by  water.  Some  of 
our  party  went  from  Walla- Walla  by  water.  I  left  the  emi- 
gration at  the  Umatilla  river,  and  came  on  with  pack  animals. 
Some  of  the  party  came  on  a  month  behind  me. 

Lit.  32. — Had  your  party  been  delayed  a  month  on  the 
road;  could  they  have  reached  Fort  Vancouver  that  winter? 

Ans. — I  think  they  could.     It  was  a  mild,  open  winter. 


89 


Int.  33. — How  far  was  it  from  the  western  frontier  to  Fort 
Hall,  and  from  Fort  Hall  to  Vancouver? 

Ann. — I  am  unable  to  give  the  distance  now.  I  think  it  wag 
about  fourteen  hundred  miles  to  Fort  Hall  from  the  Missouri 
border;  and  about  six  or  seven  hundred  miles  from  Fort  Hall 
to  Vancouver.  Those  distances  can  be  ascertained  easily.  I 
have  no  data  by  which  I  can  tell. 

Int.  34. — Are  you  certain  of  the  distances  you  have  given 
from  Fort  Hall  ?  Isn't  the  distance  much  greater  from  the 
border  to  Fort  Hall ;  and  is  it  not  six  hundred  miles  from 
there  to  Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — I  am  not.  I  don't  pretend  to  give  those  distances 
with  any  degree  of  certainty.  I  knew  them  once,  but  they  have 
escaped  my  memory. 

Int.  35. — Do  you  know  the  charges  for  transporting  freight 
now,  per  ton,  from  the  western  frontier,  Utah,  or  Fort  Hall? 
If  so,  state  them. 

Ans. — I  do  not. 

Int.  3G. — Do  you  know  the  cost  or  charge  of  taking  freight 
or  provisions  from  Portland  to  Walla-Walla  during  the  time 
you  served  in  the  Walla- Walla  or  Cayuse  Indian  wars? 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect.  In  fact  none  of  it  was  transported 
by  contract  at  that  time;  it  was  all  taken  by  pack  animals  or 
our  own  wagons;  that  is,  the  wagons  belonging  to  the  Pro- 
visional Government  of  Oregon,  and  by  the  troops. 

Inl.  37. — From  the  military  positions  you  have  filled,  can 
you  state  the  cost  of  supporting  a  body  of  fifty  men,  one  thou- 
sand miles  from  the  Willamette  valley,  for  one  month  in  the 
year  of  the  Indian  war  ? 

Ans. — If  thoy  lived  as  we  did,  the  cost  would  be  very  slight. 
We  had  very  little  else  than  beef  or  horse  meat  to  eat,  both 
of  which  were  very  cheap. 

Int.  38. — How  far  would  a  thousand  dollars  go  in  bringing 
men  from  Canada  or  England  to  the  Pacific  coast,  and  equip- 
ping and  provisioning  a  party  to  go  from  Vancouver  to  Fort 
Hall,  when  there  were  no  forts  at  Walla- Walla  or  Boisfe,  or 
transportation  on  the  Columbia  river  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  state  that  in  detail ;  I  can  state  the 


ll"  ., 


Mi 

I 
t 


.4 

■  r 


1    'h» 


I  ill" 
f 


3i  31  S 


40 

value  of  Labor  and  the  character  of  sul),sisteT)ce  there,  but  I 
cannot  state  what  it  would  cost  to  take  men  from  Canada  there. 

Int.  39. — What  was  the  labor  you  speak  of  at  Fort  Hall  in 
1843;  was  it  not  that  of  the  emigrants  who  had  crossed  with 
you? 

Ans. — Some  of  the  emigrants  who  went  with  me  hired  out, 
at  Fort  Hall,  to  go  out  with  trapping  parucs. 

Int.  40. — IIow  many  of  them,  and  for  how  long  a  time;  and 
did  they  remain  there  during  the  winter  ? 

Ans. — There  were  two  or  three  of  them  who  hired  out.  I 
don't  know  how  long  they  remained.  I  tried  to  hire  out  my- 
self. 

Int.  41. — When  you  stopped  at  Fort  Hall,  in  1843,  did  you 
notice  the  height  and  thickness  of  the  walls,  the  height  and 
size  of  the  buildings  within  the  fort,  or  the  size  of  the  en- 
closure ?     If  so,  please  state  them. 

A71S. — My  recollection  on  all  these  points  is  not  positive. 
The  enclosure  was,  I  think,  one  hundred  and  thirty  or  forty 
feet  square ;  the  wall  was  about  eighteen  or  twenty  inches 
thick,  and  about  twelve  or  fourteen  feet  high.  There  were 
several  low  buildings  inside,  connected  together ;  the"  wall  of 
the  fort  formed  one  side  of  the  buildings. 

Itit.  42. — Are  you  prepared  to  say,  from  your  recollection, 
that  there  were  not  a  two-story  dwelling-house,  three  ranges 
of  Iniildint,:-!,  containing  six  dwelling-houses,  a  store  and  black- 
smitli's  shop,  two  two-story  bastions,  and  one  small  two-story 
building,  inside,  or  connected  with  the  enclosure  ? 

Ans. — There  were  two  bastions,  but  they  were  outside  of 
the  enclosure.  There  might  have  been  as  many  buildings  as 
you  designate,  but  they  were  small  and  rude,  without  floors, 
and  covered  with  earth ;  I  think  one  of  them  was  two  stories 
high. 

lit.  43. — Were  there  not  two  horse-parks,  of  large  size  and 
thick  walls,  outside  the  fort? 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect  about  two  ;  there  was  one,  certainly. 

Int.  44. — Do  you  know  anything  about  this  post  after  1846? 

Ans. — I  do  not ;  1  never  saw  it  after  1843. 


t 


41 


and 


1 

I 


'i 


Int.  45. — Did  you  stop  long  enough  at  Fort  Boise  to  pay 
any  particular  attention  to  it  ? 

Ans. — Not  a  great  deal;  I  was  there  a  couple  of  days.  I 
was  in  the  fort  and  around  it. 

Int.  40. — Is  your  estimate  of  value  and  cost  of  Boise  based 
on  the  same  grounds  as  that  of  Fort  Hall? 

Ans. — I  should  think   it  would  cost  about  the  same.     It 
would  not  cost  as  much  as  at  Fort  Hall  to  live,  as  tlioy  had 
dried  salmon  there.     It  did  not  cosi  much  to  live  at  either 
place. 
'  Jnt.  47. — Do  you  know  anything  of  this  post  in  1846  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not ;  I  never  saw  it  after  1843. 

Int.  48. — Do  you  know  how  far  from  Boise  City,  the  capital 
of  Idaho  Territory,  is  Fort  Boise  ?     If  so,  state  it. 

Ans. — I  don't  know  positively  ;  I  have  been  informed  thirty 
or  forty  miles. 

Int.  49. — Is  there  not  a  large  and  prosperous  mining  pop- 
ulation in  the  vicinity  of  Forts  Hall  and  Boise  at  the  present 
time  ? 

Ans. — Boise  City  is  a  large  and  prosperous  town.  I  can't 
speak  of  Fort  Hall,  as  I  have  not  been  there  since  1843. 

Int.  50. — What  examination  did  you  make  of  the  post  at 
Walla- Walla,  if  any  ?  Give  the  size  of  the  enclosure,  the  height 
and  thickness  of  the  walls  surrounding  the  fort,  the  number 
of  houses  inside,  the  number  of  stores  ;  and  state,  if  you  know, 
of  what  the  foundation  of  the  fort  consisted. 

Ans. — I  could  not  give  the  size ;  I  think  it  was  larger  than 
either  of  the  two  other  forts.  My  impression  is  the  founda- 
tion vas  of  stone.  I  should  think  the  Avails  were  twenty 
inches  or  two  feet  thick,  and  twelve  or  fourteen  feet  high. 
There  Avere  several  small  buildings  inside ;  I  will  not  undertake 
to  state  the  number.  My  general  impression  is  it  Avas  much 
better  constructed  than  the  other  tAvo  forts.  In  explanation 
of  these  houses,  I  will  say  the  Avail  of  the  fort  Avas  the  back 
wall  of  the  building.  Another  wall  Avas  made  parallel  to 
it,  Avhich  was  the  front,  and  the  two  Avails  were  partitioned 
off   into    separate    rooms,    the    whole    covered    with    poles 


42 


m 


II 


trfl 


and  earth.     I  should  not  designate  each  room  as  a  sei)arate 
building. 

Int.  51. — Was  there  not  a  quantity  of  buildings  outside  the 
enclosure  of  Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — There  was  not  when  I  was  there,  in  1843.  The  fort 
appeared  to  be  nearly  new  when  I  was  there. 

Int.  52. — Can  you  state  anything  in  reference  to  Walla- 
Walla  in  1846? 

Ans. — I  cannot. 

Int.  53. — Is  your  estimate  of  the  cost  of  erecting  Fort 
Walla-AV^alla  based  on  the  same  ground  as  that  of  Fort  Hall  ? 

Ans. — My  estimates  of  the  cost  of  all  these  buildings  are 
based  on  the  cost  of  labor  and  subsistence  at  those  places  at 
the  time  I  saw  them. 

Inf.  54. — Were  there  any  men  of  your  party  hired  at  Fort 
Walla-Walla  at  that  time  ? 

Ans. — Not  immediately  at  the  fort.  There  were  some  hired 
twenty-five  miles  from  there,  at  Wiilatpu. 

Int.  55. — Do  you  know  anything  of  the  erection  of  adobe 
walls  and  buildings,  or  the  making  of  adobes ;  if  yea,  what 
has  your  experience  been? 

Ana. — Yes.  My  experience  has  been  they  would  find  a  mud 
hole ;  drive  a  lot  of  cattle  in  it,  so  that  they  would  mix  up 
the  clay,  and  then  they  would  form  a  brick  about  a  foot  long, 
and  six  or  eight  inches  thick,  and  then  dry  it  in  the  sun. 

Int.  56. — Were  not  the  Indians  at  Walla-Walla  valley  nu- 
merous, turbulent,  and  warlike  ? 

An8. — They  were  neither  when  I  "vas  there,  in  1843.  They 
did  not  become  so  until  after  the  Whitman  massacre,  which 
was  in  the  latter  part  of  1847.  They  were  hostile  again  in 
the  fall  of  1855. 

Int.  57. — After  that  time  were  they  not  considered  a  pow- 
erful and  brave  tribe  of  Indians ;  and  did  not  they  and  their 
allies,  on  the  Walla- Walla  river,  hold  in  check  a  regiment  of 
Oregon  volunteers  in  Walla-Walla  valley  ? 

Ans. — No ;  the  Walla-Wallas  proper  were  not  a  numerous 
tribe,  but  were  warlike ;  nor  they  did  not  hold  a  regiment  in 
check,  but  had  a  fight  for  three  days  with  about  three  hundred 


43 


They 


■■i 


Oregon  volnntoer<s.  They  were  whip])('il  jiiid  driven  from  the 
ground,  and  tlio  troops  advanced.  Their  allies  were  the  Yaka- 
mas,  Nez  Pcret-;,  Palouses,  Cayuses,  Taigh.s,  Waseopanis,  and 
the  John  Day  river  Indians. 

Int.  58. — IIoAv  far  wouhl  two  thousand  dollars  go  in  paying 
and  supporting  troops  to  protect  a  ])arty  building  a  fort  in 
this  valley,  Avhen  the  Indians  were  not  friendly  ? 

Ana. — That  (juestion  is  so  vague  and  indefinite  that  I  can't 
answer  it. 

Int.  59. — Did  not  all  or  nearly  all  the  emigration  pass  down 
the  river  in  the  fall  of  1843? 

Ans. — Nearly  all  of  them  went  down  either  by  land  or 
water  to  the  Willamette  valley;  a  few  remained  at  Whitman's. 

Int.  00. — Do  not  the  steamboats  of  the  Oregon  Steam  Navi- 
gation Company,  now  navigating  the  Columbia  river,  land 
their  freight  and  passengers  for  the  Upper  Columbia  and 
Snake  country,  except  in  high  water,  at  Wallula  ? 

An%. — I  do  not  know  positively ;  I  never  was  there  on  a 
steamboat,  and  never  saw  one  there.  I  went  last  fall  up  the 
river  on  a  steamer ;  most  of  the  passengers  and  freight  were 
put  off  at  Umatilla;  a  portion  went  on  to  Wallula. 

Int.  61. — Is  not  the  stage  road  of  Ruckle  and  Thomas  the 
only  good  road  across  the  Blue  Mountains,  leading  to  the 
mining  country ;  and  do  not  their  stages  run  to  Wallula  ? 

Ans. — There  is  a  diiference  of  opinion  concerning  the  best 
road  across  the  Blue  Mountains.  Some  claim  the  road  by 
Umatilla  is  the  best  road  and  much  nearer.  Stager:  run  on 
both  routes.     Ruckle  and  Thomas  run  to  Wallula. 

Int.  62. — Have  you  ever  been  in  the  Walla-Walla  valley 
since  you  came  through  in  1843;  if  so,  when  were  you  last 
there  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  I  have  been  there  twice.  I  was  there  last  Sep- 
tember. 

Int.  63. — Is  there  not  a  large  and  flourishing  settlement  in 
that  valley? 

Ans. — There  is. 

Int.  64. — Describe  the  dwelling-house  at  Champoeg  at  the 
time  you  saw  it  in  1846;  its  size,  whether  it  was  clapboarded 


:!■       r 


44 


:  |i.i, ' 


"''":-i; 


and  sliiiij^k'd,  Iioav  it  was  finished  inside,  and  whether  at  that 
time  it  was  not  a  new  liouse. 

Ann. — My  recollection  of  it  is  that  it  was  a  small  house, 
nearly  new,  shingled  and  weather-boarded.  I  don't  know 
how  it  was  finished  inside.     I  don't  recollect. 

Int.  Go. — Describe  the  granary  at  Champoeg  in  1840;  its 
size  and  structure  and  capacity  ;  and  state  whether  this  build- 
ing in  184(]  was  not  a  new  building. 

An.'<. — I  think  it  was  nearly  new.  I  think  it  was  about 
twenty-five  feet  square,  high  up  from  the  ground,  a  rough 
building. 

Int.  OG. — When,  to  your  knowledge,  was  the  town  site  of 
Champoeg  inundated  by  freshet  so  as  to  depreciate  the  'value 
of  the  property  there  previous  to  1846? 

Ans. — Not  to  my  knowledge.  There  was  a  freshet  in  1845. 
I  think  it  overflowed  a  portion  of  Champoeg.  I  don't  know. 
I  was  not  there. 

Int.  G7. — IIoAV  long  were  you  at  Astoria  or  Fort  George  in 
1844? 

Ans. — I  was  in  the  neighborhood  about  a  week. 

Int.  G8. — Did  you  visit  the  Company's  post  there,  and  were 
you  inside  the  agent's  house  or  any  of  the  buildings? 

Ans. — I  was  inside  the  Company's  house  at  Astoria  ? 

Int.  G9. — Did  you  notice  a  dwelling-house  fifty  by  twenty 
feet,  another  thirty  by  twenty,  another  thirty  by  twenty,  and 
store-house,  of  the  same  size  of  the  last? 

Ans. — I  recollect  quite  a  long  dwelling-house,  Avith  two  or 
three  rooms,  I  would  not  undertake  to  state  the  size,  and 
the  store-house  standing  close  by.  I  have  no  distinct  recol- 
lection of  any  other  building. 

Int.  70. — Were  not  those  buildings  you  noticed  shingled, 
and  might  not  the  old  and  dilapidated  appearance  you  speak 
of  have  been  caused  by  want  of  paint  and  exposure  to 
weather? 

Ans. — I  think  they  were  shingled.  It  is  possible  the  di- 
lapidated condition  might  have  been  caused  from  want  of 
paint. 

Int.  71. — Did  not  the  patch  of  ground  you  speak  of,  and 


45 


the  land  tliosc  buildings  wcro  on,  include  two  acres  or  more 
of  land,  free  from  stumps  and  in  fine  order,  under  fence,  and 
more  cleiir  land  outside  of  fence? 

Ans. — I  aliould  think  there  were  two  or  three  acres  en- 
closed for  a  "garden.  My  recollection  is,  it  was  clear  from 
stumps,  and  in  good  condition.  There  was  some  cleared  land 
outside  the  garden,  but  I  don't  recollect  the  quantity. 

Int.  72. — You  say  the  ground  around  was  heavily  timbered; 
was  not  the  whole  country  down  to  the  shore  covered  with  the 
largest  growth  of  Oregon  fir-trees,  and  a  forest  from  which 
these  grounds  had  been  cleared  for  the  buildings,  and  open 
land  around  them? 
Ans. — It  was. 

Int.  73. — What  would  it  now  cost  in  Oregon  to  clear  free 
from  stumps  and  render  smooth  an  acre  of  land  in  the  heavy 
fir  forest  of  that  country  ? 

Ans. — I  could  not  undertake  to  state  the  exact  amount.  I 
never  had  any  experience  in  that.  It  would  be  very  expen- 
sive. 

Int.  74. — At  what  part  of  Cape  Disappointment  did  you 
land  in  1849,  and  on  what  part  of  the  cape  did  you  see  Indian 
huts  ? 

Ans. — I  landed  just  inside  the  cape.  I  think  it  is  called 
Baker's  Bay.  There  were  some  Indijin  huts  along  the  margin 
of  the  bay. 

Int.  75. — When  did  you  see  Pacific  City  and  its  buildings, 
and  did  you  ever  land  there  ? 

Ans.— I  never  landed  at  Pacific  City  after  the  town  was 
commenced  building  there.  I  never  was  on  shore  after  1849. 
Int.  70. — Do  you  not  think  your  recollection  is  at  fault  as  to 
the  number  of  ships  from  England  in  each  yeor.  Was  there 
not,  in  1843,  the  Diamond  and  Columbia  ;  in  1844,  the  Brothers 
and  Cowlitz  ;  in  1845,  Vancouver  and  one  other  ;  in  1840,  the 
Admiral  Morgan  and  the  Columbia ;  and  was  there  not,  be- 
sides the  small  vessels  you  mention,  the  Company's  steamship 
Beaver,  used  in  the  coasting  trade? 

Ans. — I  could  not  positively  state  as  to  that ;  there  may 
have  been  two  vessels  a  year.     I  recollect  seeing  the  Vancou- 


1 

■ .  "i 

i 

.if' 

Wmm  I 


46 

ver  there.  I  uIho  saw  tlie  Beaver  there  once,  ;iii<l  tlie  Cadbo- 
rough. 

Int.  77. — Do  you  riot  think  that  a  person  nciiuiiinted  with 
the  climate  and  fertility  of  soil  of  Califoriiiu  might  consis- 
tently advise  an  cmigiaiit  to  settle  there  in  preference  to  Oie- 
gon,  as  it  then  was,  in  ls43  ? 

Ann. — That  would  he  a  matter  of  opinion. 

Int.  78. — You  have  spoken  of  the  emigration  of  184-3,  and 
the  price  of  the  lahor  of  that  emigration  at  Forts  Hall,  IJoise, 
and  Wulla-Wiilla  as  governing  the  cost  of  building  these  forts. 
I  will  now  ask  you  if  the  laboring  men  of  that  emigration  were 
not  so  worn  out  by  tlie  fatigue  of  crossing  the  plains  as  to 
make  their  labor  of  little  value? 

Ans. — No,  I  shouhl  think  not ;  they  had  i)lenty  to  eat  on 
the  road.  There  may  have  been  some  worn  out,  but  the  ma- 
jority of  them  were  in  good  condition.  The  trip  was  a  long 
and  tedious  one,  but  was  not  physically  exhausting. 

Int.  70. — Is  it  a  fact  that  the  emigration  of  1842  was  vei'y 
small?     What  had  they  done,  if  anything,  for  set      ment? 

Ans. — The  emigration  of  1842  was  very  sm  I  think 

they  sold  or  abandoned  all  their  wagons  at  Fort  ilall,  and 
came  down  with  pack  animals.  They  had  done  very  little  to- 
wards the  development  of  the  country  at  the  time  of  my  arri- 
val there. 

Int.  80. — IIow  many  'troops  were  there  employed  in  the 
war  in  which  you  served  as  colonel,  in  1856,  and  in  which  the 
fight  occurred  in  the  Walla-Walla  valley? 

Ans. — I  organized  and  commanded  the  regiment.  I  think 
it  consisted  of  about  seven  hundred  men  when  it  organized. 
I  took  about  four  hundred  of  them,  and  made  the  campaign  in 
the  Yakama  country,  on  the  north  side  of  the  Columbia  river. 

Int.  81. — Did  that  regiment  alone  comprise  all  the  Oregon 
troops  in  that  war  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir ;  there  were  more  troops  serving  in  the 
Bouthern  por':ion  of  the  Territory  than  there  were  in  my  reg- 
iment, but  I  could  not  state  the  number.  While  I  was  absent 
in   the  Yakama  country,  Colonel   Kelly  advanced  towards 


47 


Walla-Walla,  under  my  orders,  with  a  Imttalion  on  the  south 
Bide  of  the  Colunihia  river. 

Int.  '*^2. — What  was  the  total  amount  allowed  hv  the  hoard 
of  commissioners  appointed  hy  the  United  States  (Jovernnient 
for  the  claims  for  suhsistence,  transportation,  and  j)ay  of  these 
Orcffon  troops  ? 

Anx. — I  am  unable  to  state  anything  near  the  amount.  It 
has  escaped  my  recollection, 

Int.  S.">. — In  the  early  settlement  of  Oregon,  in  1.S44  and 
184/),  ditl  not  the  settlers  entertain  great  fears  of  the  tribes 
of  Indians  in  the  Territory  of  Oregon  ? 

Ann. — I  don't  think  there  was  any  ajtprehension  entertained 
on  that  suliject  up  to  the  time  of  the  Whitman  nmssaere  in 
1847.  The  Indians  of  the  Willamette  valley,  where  the  prin- 
cipal American  settlements  were  at  that  time,  were  exceed- 
ingly docile,  and  not  disposed  to  make  war.  Nearly  all  the 
Indian  hostilities  have  been  confined  to  the  southern  portion 
of  territory,  north  of  the  Columbia  river,  and  cast  of  the 
Cascade  Mountains.  Wc  never  had  any  Indian  war  in  the  Wil- 
lamette valley.  , 

Int.  84. — You  have  spoken  of  these  forts  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company ;  were  they  not  strong  and  substantial  fortifi- 
cations, ample  to  protect  the  employes  of  the  Company 
ajjainst  all  attacks  of  hostile  Indians,  and  suitable  for  the 
purposes  for  which  they  were  erected? 

Ans:. — They  were  ample  for  all  those  purposes. 

Int.  85. — Did  you  in  1845,  at  Oregon  City,  sign  a  paper 
containing  this  language,  viz: 

"That  this  mixed  population  exists  in  the  midst  of  numer- 
ous and  warlike  tribes  of  Indians,  to  whom  the  smallest  dis- 
sensions among  the  white  inhabitants  would  be  the  signal  to 
let  loose  upon  their  defenceless  families  all  the  horrors  of  sav- 
age warfare?" 
(Objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Ans. — In  1845  the  Legislatui3  was  in  session  in  Oregon 
City.  They  drew  up  a  memorial  to  the  Congress  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  which  I,  among  others,  signed.  I  have  no  positive 
recollection  of  the  language,  but  I  think  it  did  contain  some- 


'I,, 


:"i|,: 


*" 

' '' Til 

■  i'! 
■:'•   'Hi 

^,''"4 

'.'•1 

■  SI    'Jl' 

"'"I'I'I 


lih  ,  l_^  ^  iij,i 


i!'W,  M„  -i 


48 

thing  of  the  character  contained  in  the  question.  We  were 
exceed iigly  anxious  for  the  United  States  to  extend  its  laws 
and  jurisdiction  over  us. 

Int.  80. — Did  this  paper  which  you  signed  contain  this  pas- 
sage, now  read  to  you,  viz : 

"Although  such  has  been  the  result  thus  far  of  our  tempo- 
rary union  of  interests;  tlPough  we,  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  have  had  no  catise  to  complain  either  of  exactions  or 
oppression  at  the  hands  of  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  but 
on  the  contrary,  it  is  but  just  to  say  that  their  conduct  to- 
wards us  has  been  most  friendly,  liberal,  and  philanthropic, 
yet  we  fear,  as  long  .ontij;uance  of  the  present  state  of  things 
is  not  to  be  expected,  our  temporary  government  being  lim- 
ited in  its  efficiency  and  crippled  in  its  powers  by  ihc  para- 
mount duty  we  owe  to  our  respective  Governments,  our  reve- 
nues being  inadequate  to  its  srpport,  and  the  almost  total 
absence,  apart  from  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  of  the  niea.'.s 
of  defence  against  the  Indians,  who,  recent  occurrences  lead 
us  to  fear,  entertain  hostile  feelings  towards  the  people  of  the 
United  States?" 

(Objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Ans. — 1  have  not  seen  that  memorial  since  I  signed  it.  I 
think  it  is  more  than  probable  that  it  contained  the  statements 
in  question.     My  impression  is  that  it  did. 

Int.  87. — Did  this  paper  which  you  signed  contain  this  pas- 
sage, now  read  to  you,  viz : 

"  Your  memorialists  would  further  inform  your  honorable 
body,  that  while  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  through  the 
agency  of  the  Hudson's  Lay  Company,  are  amply  provided 
with  all  the  munitions  of  war,  and  can  afford,  by  means  of 
their  numerous  fortifications,  ample  protection  for  themselves 
and  their  property,  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  are 
scattered  over  a  wide  extent  of  territory,  without  a  single 
place  of  refuge,  an  J  within  themselves  almost  entirely  destitute 
of  every  means  of  defence?  " 

(Objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Ana. — As  I  said  before,  I  have  not  seen  that  memorial  for 
tv/enty-one  years.     I  think  it  contained  language  similar  to 


49 


We  were 

its  laws 

this  pas- 

r  toiiipo- 
0  United 
etions  or 
tain,  but 
duct  to- 
itliropic, 
if  things 
oing  lim- 
he  para- 
uv  reve- 
3St  total 
lie  nica.'.s 
ces  lead 
le  of  the 


1  it.     I 

itcMucnts 

;hid  pas- 

iiorablo 
ugii  the 
rovided 
eans  of 
uisolves 
tes  are 
I  single 
cslitutc 


rial  for 
lilar  to 


that  which  you  quote.  We  were  endeavoring  to  make  a  strong 
case  and  get  protection.  I  recollect  the  memorial,  and  the 
person  who  drew  it,  and  I  have  no  doubt  but  what  it  contained 
substantially  what  has  been  read. 

Int.  88. — Do  you  not  know  that  tho  cost  of  taking  flour 
and  other  provisions  to  the  Walla-Walla  valley,  in  the  Indian 
war  of  1855-56,  was  very  groat  ? 

Ans. — It  would  have  been  very  great  to  have  transported 
flour  or  supplies  there. 

Examination-in-  Chief  Resumed. 

Int.  1. — You  have  stated  in  effect,  in  reply  to  some  question 
in  the  cross-examination,  that  you  were  unable  to  give  from 
recollection  the  dimensions  of  the  forts  and  buildings,  which 
you  have  seen  at  different  times,  at  the  posts  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  nor  to  describe  in  detail  their  specific  condi- 
tion in  any  given  year;  and  you  have  stated  also  that  the 
want  of  paint  and  clap-boards  may  possibly  have  contributed 
somewhat  to  tho  dilapidated  appearance  of  the  buildings  : 
please  now  to  state  whether  your  memory  is  or  is  not  distinct, 
in  regard  to  the  general  appearance  of  these  forts  and  build- 
ings, as  you  saw  them  at  different  times,  and  whether  or  not, 
on  reflection,  you  think  that  you  have  given  in  your  tosti- 
mony-in-chicf,  and  now  wish  to  alter  any  part  of  the  same. 

Ans. — I  do  not  think  I  have  erred  in  my  testimony-in-ehief. 
The  question  was  asked  me,  in  reference  to  Astoria,  if  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  dilapidation  of  the  buildings  did  not  result 
from  the  want  of  paint  and  exposure  to  the  weather.  The 
buildings  were  very  old  and  very  much  decayed ;  paint  might 
have  kept  them  in  a  better  condition.  My  memory  is  distinct 
on  the  general  appearance  of  the  b.Lildings.  Of  course  there 
may  be  some  things  in  detail  which  have  escaped  my  memory. 

Int.  2. — Do  you  know  of  any  operations  of  the  Hudson's 

Bay  Company,  in  the  Territory  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains, 

on  cither  side  of  the  Columbia  river,  in  clearing  the  land  of 

timber,  or  in  making  roads  with  a  view  to  opening  the  coun- 

4C 


60 


W-M 


try  to  settlement?     If  yea,  please  to  describe  the  same  as 
fully  as  you  can. 

(Objected  to,  as  nothing  of  that  kind  having  been  inquired 
into  in  the  cross-examination.) 

A718. — I  never  saw  any  land  about  their  posts  that  bore  evi- 
dence of  having  been  cleared,  except  about  Astoria.  There 
the  timber  had  evidently  been  cut  off  many  years  before.  I 
never  saw  anything  deserving  the  name  of  a  road,  that  had 
been  made  previous  to  my  going  to  the  country. 

J.  W.  Nesmith. 

Washington,  3Iat/  15,  1866. 


Testimony  of  Justus  Steinberger. 


iM 


»« 


Justus  Steinberger,  being  duly  sworn,  according  to  law,  de- 
poses, and  says : 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  age,  place  of  residence,  and 
present  occupation? 

Ans. — My  name  is  Justus  Steinberger ;  I  am  forty  years 
of  age ;  my  residence  is  Washington  city,  at  present ;  I  have 
no  occupation  at  present. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  ever  lived  in  Oregon  and  Washington 
Territory  ;  if  yea,  when  and  where,  and  for  how  long  a  period 
at  each  place  ? 

Ans. — I  have ;  I  went  to  Oregon  first  in  18f50,  I  think  in 
October,  and  remained  there  until,  I  think,  April,  1851.  I 
afterwards  went  to  Oregon  in  February,  1852,  to  make  it  my 
residence ;  it  has  since  been  my  residence,  although  I  have 
been  absent  frequently ;  on  one  occasion  for  over  two  years. 
I  spent  a  year  in  Washington  Territory,  in  the  service  of  the 
Government,  in  the  employ  of  the  army.  I  think  that  was 
in  1860  and  1861 ;  I  don't  recollect  the  day  I  went  there,  or 
the  day  I  left.  I  then  left  Washington  Territory  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1861,  and  returned  to  Fort  Vancouver  in  April,  1862, 
and  took  command  of  the  military  district,  of  Oregon,  with  the 
rank  of  colonel  of  volunteers ;  and  from  that  time  until  March, 


51 


iame  as 


1865,  was  in  the  army  service  of  the  Government,  in  the  dis- 
trict of  Oregon.  During  my  term  of  service,  from  April, 
1862,  to  March,  1865,  my  immediate  stations  and  head- 
quarters were  in  Washington  Territory. 

Int.  3. — Have  you  ever  visited  any  of  the  posts  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  in  what  was  formerly  the  Territory 
of  Oregon,  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains?  If  yea,  please  to 
name  the  different  posts  in  their  possession  which  you  have 
seen,  and  with  which  you  are  acquainted,  more  or  less. 

Ans. — I  have  visited  Fort  Vancouver ;  have  seen  the  site 
of  the  old  Fort  Walkv-Walla,  and  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany's post  on  and  near  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz.  I  have 
seen  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Baker's  Bay, 
mouth  of  the  Columbia  river,  on  the  right  bank.  I  have  been 
at  Champoeg,  and  Fort  George,  or  Astoria.  I  know  Pillar 
Rock;  I  have  been  by  it  frequently,  and  I  think  I've  been 
ashore  at  or  near  there.     I  don't  remember  any  other  places. 

Int.  4. — Please  to  describe,  as  fully  as  you  can,  the  character 
and  condition  of  the  fort  and  buildings  of  the  Company  at 
Vancouver  when  you  first  saw  them. 

An8. — My  recollection  of  Fort  Vancouver  in  the  winter  of 
1850,  when  I  first  saw  it,  is  very  indistinct,  and  my  remem- 
brance of  the  fort  refers  to  the  time  of  my  residence  in  Wash- 
ington Territory  and  Oregon,  from  lhi52  to  1865.  During 
that  time  I  mode  frequent  visits  to  the  fort.  1  never  made  a 
careful  examination  of  the  character  of  the  buildings,  but  re- 
member them  as  wooden  structures,  store-houses,  and  resi- 
dences of  the  officers  and  employes  of  the  Company,  surrounded 
by  a  picket  stockade.  The  character  of  the  whole  structure 
looked  to  me  as  if  for  defensive  purposes.  There  wore  two 
bastions,  if  not  more.  I  recollect  two  at  least,  with  guns  in 
them.  Some  pieces  of  artillery  were  in  front  of  the  Governor's 
house.  There  were  one  or  two  buildings  which  looked  to  me 
to  be  store-houses,  outside  the  picket,  said  to  belong  to  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company ;  an  apple  orchard  enclosed,  and  a 
number  of  fields  enclosed,  (how  many,  I  don't  know,)  and 
apparently  under  cultivation.  There  were  also  a  number  of 
old  slab  buildings  collected  together,  and  called  Kanaka  Town. 


'yu|iivi  jmtvm^mfi^ 


52 


imVI 


Whether  tliey  belonged  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  or  not, 
I  do  not  knoAV.  I  never  carefully  examined  the  structures. 
They  wore  built  of  wooden  material,  and  compared  to  the  style 
of  the  recent  buildings  in  Oregon,  I  tliinls  were  inferior  in 
construction  and  material. 

Int.  f). — Are  you  familiar  with  the  country  adjacent  to  the 
post  and  bounded  on  the  river,  extending  say  from  i  point 
six  or  ciglit  miles  above  the  fort  westerly  to  the  Cathlapootl 
or  Lewes  river,  and  back  from  the  river  for  a  distance  say  of 
eight  or  ten  miles? 

Ans. — I  know  very  little  of  the  country  beyond  one  mile 
back  from  the  Columbia  river  except  the  Fourth  Plain;  I  have 
seen  that. 

Int.  6. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  value  of  the  land 
per  acre  at  the  post  at  Vancouver;  if  yea,  please  to  describe 
the  value  thereof  as  fully  as  you  can,  discriminating  between 
the  ditterent  varieties  of  the  land. 

Ans. — It  is  impossible  for  me  to  answer  that  question  in 
that  shape,  and  for  the  reason  that  I  never  offered  to  purchase 
any  of  that  land,  and  none  of  it  was  ever  offered  me  for  sale, 
with  this  one  exception,  that  when  a  town  plot  was  laid  off 
and  lots  were  sold  in  what  is  now  called  Vancouver,  I  owned 
the  one-half  of  ten  acres  in  the  town  site,  and  at  a  point  that 
I  believe  the  most  valuable  in  the  town.  It  cost  at  the  rrte 
of  one  hundred  dollars  per  acre.  I  have  forgotten  the  year 
the  purchase  was  made.  It  was  purchased  at  a  time  that  great 
expectation  was  had  of  the  growth  and  prosperity  of  ^'^ancou- 
ver  as  a  commercial  town.  I  believe  the  property  to  be  of 
less  value  now  than  when  I  purchased.  My  recollection  of 
the  estimated  value  of  it,  by  other  persons,  differed  so  widely 
in  price  that  I  could  never  form  an  opinion  as  to  its  value. 

Int.  7. — What  was  the  condition  of  the  fort  and  buildings 
at  Vancouver  in  18G3?  Please  to  describe  the  same  as  fully 
as  you  can. 

Ans. — I  didn't  pay  much  attention  to  the  property  in  1863. 
I  did  not  live  at  Vancouver,  but  in  several  visits  I  made  to 
Vancouver  in  that  year,  I  saw  the  old  site  of  the  Hudson's 


63 


■■'I 


i 


■; 


■'< 


s 


■ 


i 


Bay  Company,  Fort  Vancouver,  and  it  presented  to  mo  the 
appearcncc  of  old,  dilapidated,  and  worthless  ruins. 

Int.  8. — Did  you,  while  residing  on  the  Pacific  const,  observe 
the  course  of  trade  in  that  country,  and  the  progress  of  settle- 
ment at  different  points?  If  yea,  please  to  state  what,  in  your 
opinion,  is  the  prospect  of  the  future  growth  and  pros])ority  of 
the  town  of  Vancouver. 

(Opinion  of  witness  objected  to.) 

A71S. — I  was  personally  engaged  in  business  in  Oregon  for 
several  years,  and  had  an  opportunity  to  observe  the  ])rogres8 
of  trade.  It  is  my  belief  that,  from  present  indications,  Van- 
couver will  not  be  a  point  of  any  great  commercial  impor- 
tance. 

Int.  0. — Has  or  has  not  the  town  of  Portland  advanced  in 
wealth  and  population,  materially,  the  last  five  or  ton  years? 
If  yea,  hoAV  does  it  affect  the  growth  and  developmeat  of  the 
town  of  Vancouver? 

Ans. — It  has  advanced  in  growth  and  prosperity  very  much ; 
and  its  growth  has  retarded  in  some  measure  thnt  of  Van- 
couver. I  believe  that  the  principal  purpose  in  the  location 
of  the  town  of  Vancouver,  and  the  inducements  for  tlie  invest- 
ments in  town  property  there,  was  the  prospect  of  its  success- 
ful rivalry  with  the  city  of  Portland  as  a  commercial  port. 
In  that  I  think  it  has  failed. 

Int.  10. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  any  of  the  other  posts 
of  the  Company  in  wliat  was  formerly  Or.egon  Territory  ?  If 
yea,  please  to  describe  the  same  in  detail,  as  fully  as  you  can, 
giving  the  character  and  condition  and  value  of  the  fort  and 
the  building's  when  you  saw  and  observed  them. 

Ans. — I  saw,  in  1850,  at  Baker's  Bay,  one  old  building  of 
wood,  reported  to  belong  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 
There  was  very  little  cleared  land  around  it.  The  building 
was  of  very  little  value ;  it  fronted  on  the  bay ;  the  other 
three  sides  were  surrounded  by  a  dense  forest.  Adjoining  what 
was  reported  to  be  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  claim,  a  town 
site  had  been  located,  I  believe  by  Dr.  White  and  others,  called 
.  Pacific  City.  There  was  but  one  building  on  the  town  site — 
a  hotel  kept  by  Mr.  Ilolman.     There  were  expectations  of  its 


54 

becoming  a  town  of  importance,  as  a  seaport.  The  enterprise 
proved  a  complete  failure,  and  was  abandoned.  I  saw  the 
buildings  near  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz,  on  the  Cowlitz  river, 
in  18r>0,  said  to  belong  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  To 
the  best  of  my  recollection,  there  was  one  large  storehouse,  sev- 
eral small  out-houses  and  sheds,  and  a  few  small  bouses  occupied 
by  the  officers  and  servants  of  the  Company.  The  storehouse 
was  a  tolerably  substantial  building,  and  of  rough  material. 
The  other  buildings,  compared  to  those  built  bv  Americans  at 
the  present  time,  were  of  rude  structure  ;  they  were  on  the  site 
of  the  landing  where  small  steamboats  now  land.  I  cannot 
place  any  estimate  upon  the  value  of  the  buildings.  1  saw 
what  was  called  Fort  George,  now  Astoria,  in  1850.  To  the 
best  of  my  recollection,  there  were  a  few  old  buildings,  said 
to  belong  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  of  very  little  intrin- 
sic value,  and  a  very  few  acres  of  land,  partially  enclosed.  It 
was  occupied  at  the  time  by  the  troops  of  the  United  States 
Government  as  a  militarj'^  post.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  the 
property  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Champoeg.  I  saw 
the  site  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  Fort  Walla- Walla 
in  1802  for  the  first  time,  and  had  pointed  out  to  me  two  old 
adbbe  buildings  and  the  remains  of  a  stockade,  said  to  have 
belonged  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  They  had  been 
repaired,  and  were  occupied  by  a  Mr.  Van  Sycle.  I  am  un- 
able to  put  any  estimate  upon  their  value.  The  site  was  the 
landing-place  for  sttfamboats. 


Cross-Examination. 


Silt  t 


Int.  1. — Between  1852  and  1856,  were  you  residing  at  Fort 
Vancouver,  or  only  visiting  there  occasionally ;  if  so,  where 
did  you  reside,  and  in  wbat  business  were  you  occupied  ? 

Ans. — I  lived  at  Portland,  Oregon ;  I  was  the  agent  of 
Adams  &  Co.'s  express  and  banking  establishment  for  Oregon 
and  Washington  Territory.  I  visited  Fort  Vancouver  very 
frequently. 

Int.  2. — How  far  from  the  site  of  the  fort,  down  the  river, 


56 


\ 


was  this  ton  acres  you  speak  of  purchasing  ?     Look  on  this 
map,  and,  if  you  can,  locate  it. 

Ans. — I  can't  on  this  map,  because  the  Vancouver  lots  are 
not  marked  here.  I  can  describe  it  by  saying  it  was  next  to 
the  saw-mill ;  it  was  between  a  half-mile  and  a  mile  from  the 
western  picket  line  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  old  fort 
at  Vancouver  ;  I  don't  recollect  the  exact  distance. 

Int.  3. — On  the  land  claim  of  Avhat  American  citizen  was  it 
situated,  and  of  whom  did  you  buy  it  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect;  I  bought  it  jointly  with  another 
person,  and  paid  no  attention  to  the  transfer. 

Int.  4. — Do  you  not  recollect  that  the  town  of  Vancouver 
was  laid  out  in  lots,  and  that  this  ten  acres  was  below  the  part 
laid  out  in  lots  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  that,  but  my  impression  is  that  it 

was  a  part  of  the  town  site,  though  of  that  I  am  not  certain. 

Int.  5. — When  towns  are  laid  out  in  lots,  are  they  ever  sold 

in  acres,  or  are  they  sold  by  the  subdivisions  of  lots,  defined 

by  the  survey  ? 

jlns. — I  can  only  answer  that  question  by  stating  a  fact.  I 
know  that  a  town  site  was  located  on  the  Willamette  river,  in 
Oregon,  embodying  the  whole  of  a  land-claim  of  three  hun- 
dred and  twenty  acres  ;  and  that  while  a  portion  of  the  claim 
adjoining  the  river  was  laid  out  in  lots  of  certain  dimensions, 
a  portion  of  the  rear  of  the  claim,  of  about  forty  acres,  was 
sold  by  the  acre,  subject  to  an  after  subdivision  of  the  town 
by  the  town  or  city  authorities. 

Int.  6. — If  you  do  not  know  whose  title  you  purchased,  or 
whose  land  you  bought,  can  you  tell  whether  you  had  a  deed 
from  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  for  this  land? 

Ans. — I  believe  not.  I  believe  no  deed  from  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company. 

Int.  7. — Do  you  still  retain  the  part  ownership  of  this  land, 
or  have  you  sold  it?  If  so,  for  what  price,  and  how  long 
since? 

Ans. — I  have  no  ownership  in  it  at  present.  I  sold  my  in- 
terest in  it  for  six  hundred  dollars,  which  I  considered  was 
more  than  it  was  worth.     I  sold  it  about  six  years  ago. 


lMiaii|i1,UFIii 


ik  "li   ' 
•■■■:'  M  '\ 


Villi     , 


■■■-'i"l.  ■:! 


:'Wi:^ 


'■'li;'.'  I 


'..:%' 


,  .Hill 


iiii  , , . 

IW.' 


f  "-''if  '^ 

i  'i '  '-i  ■  '5 

I'iijfii''! 

|if 


56 

7/*^  8. — Arc  there  not  some  objections  to  Portland  as  a  place 
of  commerce,  such  us  want  of  water  in  the  river  for  ocean 
steamers  ;  is  not  the  being  oft"  the  line  of  travel,  on  the 
main  Columbia  to  the  mines,  unother  objection  ;  and  is  not 
the  nivrrowncss  of  the  Willamette  river,  at  the  site  of  the 
town,  another  objection  ;  and  is  not  the  tendency  to  open 
direct  trade  from  the  mines  with  San  Francisco  likely  to  do 
an  injury  to  the  commerce  of  Portland? 

A)iK. — The  want  of  a  sufficient  depth  of  water  at  Swan 
Island  bar  and  at  the  mouth  of  Willamette  river,  where  it 
empties  into  the  Columbia  river,  was,  at  certain  seasons  of  the 
vear,  an  embarrassment  to  navisjation  for  ocean  vessels  of 
heavy  draft.  To  the  citizens  of  Portland,  it  was  not  consid- 
ered  an  insuperable  objection  to  the  commerce  of  their  town. 
The  citizens  of  Portland  think  being  off"  the  line  of  travel 
is  not  an  objection.  I  think  the  water-front  at  Portland  is 
sufficient  for  the  present  commerce  of  the  town.  The  only 
complaints  I  have  ever  heard  of  the  Avant  of  room  in  the 
water-front  have  been  of  the  little  delay  that  has  occurred  in 
swinging  around  large  steamships  in  their  departure  from  the 
wharves.  It  never  aff'orded  an  impediment  for  their  depai*- 
ture,  but  took  a  little  time  to  maneuvre  their  ships,  and  this 
only  at  a  very  low  stage  of  water.  The  citizens  of  Portland 
do  not  think  that  the  tendency  of  open  and  direct  trade  from 
the  mines  to  San  Francisco  would  be  an  injury  to  their  com- 
mcice.  They  don't  think  any  other  city  can  compete  with 
them.  The  town  of  Portland  was  first  located  with  a  view  to 
the  supply  of  the  Willamette  valley  and  Tualatin  Plains,  and 
as  at  the  head  of  navigation  of  the  Willamette  river,  which 
waters  that  country. 

The  country  in  which  the  gold  mines  have  since  been  dis- 
covered attracted  to  commercial  men  at  that  time  no  interest. 
The  ocean  vessels  running  to  that  town,  and  for  a  few  years 
after  its  location,  were  able  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  Willa- 
mette valley,  and  Tualatin  Plains,  without  embarrassment  in 
na\igation. 

Portland  is  twelve  miles  up  the  Willamette  river,  from  where 
it  empties  into  the  Columbia  river.     As  Portland  increased 


'i 


A 


,' 


:^ 


57 


.i 


in  population  and  prosperity,  persons  having  an  interest  in 
property  on  the  Columbia  river,  above  and  below  the  mouth 
of  the  AVillamette,  made  efforts  to  establish  towns.  Several 
points  were  spoken  of  as  eligible  points  for  sea-going  vessels; 
among  the  rest,  Astoria,  Cathlamet,  Rainier,  St.  Helen's,  and 
Vancouver.  Buildings  were  put  up  on  them,  and  every  effort 
was  made  by  the  proprietors  of  the  land  to  attract  attention 
to  their  eligibility  for  that  purpose. 

The  influence  of  the  City  of  Portland  has  thus  far  over- 
come the  embarrassments  of  the  navigation  of  the  Willamette 
river  that  I  have  mentioned,  and  has  prevented  any  success- 
ful rivalry  from  these  towns  on  the  Columbia.  It  is  now,  after 
the  discovery  of  the  gold  mines  on  the  Columbia  and  its  trib- 
utaries, the  commercial  port  for 'not  only  the  Willamette  val- 
ley and  the  Tualatin  Plains,  but  for  all  the  country  east  of  the 
Cascades. 

I  think,  to  say  nothing  of  the  merits  of  the  towns  below 
the  mouth  of  the  Willamette  river,  there  are  obstructions  in 
the  water-front  of  the  town  of  Vancouver  equally  as  embar- 
rassing to  sea-going  vessels  as  those  in  the  Willamette  river 
before  the  city  of  Portland. 

Int.  9, — Have  not  St.  Helen's  and  Rainier  long  since  de- 
cayed, and  lost  any  pretense  of  being  sites  of  commerce? 

Ans. — They  have  failed  to  come  up  to  vhc  expectation  of 
their  original  proprietors. 

Int.  10. — Did  Cathlamet  ever  have,  or  has  it  now,  more  than 
five  or  six  houses? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  the  number  of  houses.  I  never  counted 
them. 

Int.  11. — Are  not  Astoria  and  Vancouver,  of  the  places  you 
have  mentioned  on  the  Columbia  river,  the  only  ones  that 
have  retained  their  growth  and  most  of  their  population? 

Ans. — I  believe  that  Astoria  has  a  greater  population  now 
than  in  IS.'iG.  I  am  doubtful  if  the  town  of  Vancouver  has 
as  many  citizen  residents  in  it  now  as  at  some  other  time  since 
its  foundation  as  a  town.  I  think  I  can  recollect  when  it  had 
a  greater  population  than  it  had  in  March,  1865,  when  I  last 
saw  it. 


58 


::i 


■ ,  iiiiji 


Int.  12. — Who  was  in  command  of  the  United  States  troops 
at  old  Fort  George,  at  the  time  you  speak  of,  when  tlie  United 
States  troops  were  in  possession  of  it? 

Ans, — I  think  Major  Ilathcway,  of  the  Ist  United  States 
Artillery. 

Int.  13. — Does  not  the  Walla- Walla  valley,  where  you  were 
stationed  some  years,  contain  a  large  and  flourishing  settle- 
ment? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  the  population  of  the  Walla- Walla 
valley.  I  know  that  along  the  Walla-Walla  river  and  its 
tributaries  there  is  fertile,  arable  land;  I  can't  give  the  ex- 
act extent  of  it.  The  claims  were  taken  under  the  pre-emp- 
tion laws,  which  have,  in  many  instances,  since  been  divided. 
This  fertile  land  is  generally  occupied  and  improved.  There 
is  a  town  in  the  Walla- Walla  valley,  within  three-quarters  of 
a  mile  of  Fort  Walla-Walla,  with  a  population  varying  from 
eight  to  fifteen  hundred  persons.  I  do  not  believe  that  any 
of  the  agricultural  products  are  shipped  from  the  valley,  to 
any  extent,  except  flour.  Some  cattle  are  raised  in  the  valley, 
and  a  few  of  them  sent  to  the  mines  for  sale.  The  settlement 
of  this  valley  was  commenced  and  promoted  by  the  establish- 
ment of  a  military  post  and  the  presence  of  United  States 
troops,  and  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  them.  Until  within 
the  past  four  years  the  product  of  this  valley  in  grain  found 
its  market  in  the  United  States  Government,  in  the  supply  of 
United  States  troops  at  this  post. 

Justus  Steinberger. 

Washington  City,  J).  C,  May  16,  1806. 


Testimony  op  Charles  B.  Wagner. 


Charles  B.  Wagner,  being  duly  sworn  and  examined  according 
to  law,  says: 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  age,  place  of  residence,  and 
occupation  ? 

Ans. — Charles  B.  Wagner  ;  aged  forty  years  ;  place  of  res- 


59 


Idcncc,  Washington  City ;  and  occupation,  an  oflieor  oT  the* 
United  States  army — brevet  colonel,  captain,  and  quarter- 
master. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  ever  lived  in  Washington  Territory?  If 
yea,  when,  and  where,  and  for  how  long  a  time  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  from  the  latter  part  of  August,  IH^T,  to 
the  middle  of  September,  1861,  at  Fort  Vancouver,  Washing- 
ton Territory. 

Int.  3. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  fort  and  l)uildings  at 
Vancouver,  which  were  formerly  occupied  by  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company?  If  yea,  please  to  describe  them  as  they  were 
when  you  first  observed  them. 

Ans. — Yes,  sir.  When  I  first  went  there,  in  the  hitter  part  of 
August,  1857,  the  buildings  then  occupied  by  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  were  principally  embraced  in  what  was  known 
as  the  stockade,  with  the  exception  of  the  salmon-house  near 
the  river,  which  was  outside  the  stockade.  The  buildings 
were  old,  and  some  were  very  much  dilapidated.  The  build- 
iugs  consisted  of  what  was  known  as  the  store  there,  two  or 
three  store-houses,  one  of  which  was  rented  and  occupied  by 
the  United  States  quartermaster  at  that  time,  1857,  and  what 
was  known  as  the  Governor's  house.  These  were  the  principal 
buildings  within  the  stockade.  In  addition  to  those,  there 
were  four  or  five  smaller  buildings,  occupied  by  the  employes 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  There  were  a  few  buildings 
outside  the  stockade,  of  which  the  salmon-house  was  the  prin- 
cipal, one  small  frame  building,  occupied  by  the  ordnance  de- 
partment as  a  store-house,  one  small  log  building,  occupied  by 
Mrs.  Field,  and  four  or  five  small  huts  occupied  by  Sandwich 
Islanders  or  Kanakas,  and  several  old  stables ;  these  are  about 
all  I  remember. 

Int.  4. — How  did  the  character  and  condition  of  the  fort 
and  buildings  at  this  post,  at  the  time  you  last  saw  them,  com- 
pare with  their  character  and  condition  when  you  saw  and 
observed  them  for  the  first  time  ? 

Am. — They  had  gone  very  much  out  of  repair  ;  a  number 
of  them  were  unoccupied ;  some  of  them  were  partly  fallen 
down. 


'"s  5 .1 


■•'^■,  S 


w 


is  m 


m 


'sm'iu 


GO 

Inf.  r>. — Aro  yon  ncquaintcd  with  the  value  of  the  fort  and 
buihliii;,'s  cithor  collet'tively  or  in  detail?  If  yea,  please  to 
.state,  as  fully  as  you  can,  yonr  opinion  of  that  value  at  the 
time  you  last  saw  them. 

(Ohjeeted  to  as  a  matter  of  opinion.) 

An8, — I  could  ;:;ive  an  opinion,  so  far  as  what  I  considered 
their  worth  when  I  last  saw  them  ;  Iamacquainte<l  with  their 
value.  For  any  practical  purposes,  in  August  or  Septemher, 
1801,  the  buildings  within  the  stockade  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  were  of  very  little  value,  in  my  estimation.  I  should 
say  they  were  not  certainly  worth  over  six  thousand  or  eight 
thousand  dollars. 

Int.  0. — Please  to  look  at  the  map  of  Vancouver  and  its 
vicinity,  here  produced,  and  state  whether,  in  your  opinion,  it 
is  a  correct  delineation  of  that  locality 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  it  is  so. 

Int.  7. — Are  you  ac({uainted  with  the  country  ar  represented 
on  this  map,  for  a  space  extending  from  a  point  above  the  saw- 
mill, some  six  or  eight  miles  above  the  fort,  down  the  river  to 
the  Cathlapootl  river,  and  back  from  the  Columbia  for  a  dis- 
tance of  an  average  of  about  ten  miles,  embracing  a  tract  oi 
about  twenty-five  miles  longand  ten  miles  wide?  If  yea,  please 
to  state  the  condition  and  character  of  the  same  as  fully  as 
you  can,  and  describe  what  part  thereof,  if  any  was,  while 
you  were  there,  occupied  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Ans. — Yes,  sir,  I  am  acquainted  with  the  country  described 
in  the  question.  From  the  bank  of  the  river,  for  an  average 
of  about  a  mile,  from,  say  two  miles  above  Vancouver,  the 
country  is  low  and  flat  down  to  the  Cathapootl  river.  From 
two  miles  above  Vancouver  up  to  the  saw-mill,  the  country  is 
hilly  and  rough.  The  country  in  rear  of  this  mile  to,  say  half 
a  mile  below  Vancouver,  is  high  land,  principally  covered  with 
timber.  There  are  parts  embraced  within  this  average  mile 
from  the  river  that  are  good  agricultural  lands  and  fertile.  A 
good  portion  of  it,  however,  is  liable  to  be  overflowed  every 
very  high  stage  of  water  each  year.  There  was  only  a  small 
portion,  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  stockade 
enclosure,  occupied  by  the  Company — how  much  at  the  saw- 


61 


mill  I  am  unal)lc  to  suy.  I  suppose  there  was  about  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty  or  forty  acres  enclosed  ut  or  near  the  j^tnckadc. 
That  is  the  only  land  which  I  knew  the  IlufUuu's  Tlay  Coiiipany 
liad  enclosed,  except  at  the  saw-mill,  of  which  I  aui  not  able 
to  say  how  much. 

Jnt.  8. — l)i<l  you  ever  observe  any  marks  or  objects  of  any 
kind  which  indicated  any  boundaries,  or  surveys  of  any  claim 
which  were  outside  of  the  lands  which  were  actually  enclosed? 
If  yea,  please  to  describe  them. 
Aiis. — No,  sir  ;  I  did  not. 

Int.  0. — llow  were  the  lands  occupied  in  this  tract  which 
you  have  described,  exclusive  of  those  which  were  enclosed 
and  occupied,  if  at  all,  and  by  whom,  from  IH')!  to  18*50? 

Ans. — They  were  occupied  by  settlers,  a  number  of  small 
farms;  by  the  military  post  at  Vancouver,  the  town  of  Van- 
couver, and  by  the  Catholic  Mission.  A  greater  portion  of 
it,  however,  was  unoccupied. 

Int.  10. — What  was  the  condition  of  the  town  of  Vancouver 
during  the  period  that  you  were  there,  nourishing  or  other- 
wise? 

Ans. — From  1857  to  the  spring  of  1850  the  town  was  in  a 
flourishing  condition.  After  the  spring  of  1850  the  town  com- 
menced to  decline  in  its  prospects. 

Int.  11. — What,  in  your  judgment,  was  the  cause  c"  the 
growth  and  establishment  of  the  town  up  to  a  given  point,  and 
the  cause  of  its  thereafter  beginning  to  decline? 

Ans. — Tlie  principal  cause  of  its  growth  from  1857  to  the 
spring  of  1850  was,  I  think,  by  parties  settling  there,  endeav- 
oring to  attract  trade  from  Portland.  The  garrison  at  the 
post  at  Vancouver  was  during  a  part  of  that  time  increased, 
and  brought  a  great  many  new  settlers  there  for  the  purpose  of 
traffic  with  the  garrison.  Its  decline  commenced  in  the  spring 
of  1850,  from  the  cause  of  those  people  who  had  settled  there, 
who  had  failed  in  their  endeavors  to  attract  trade  to  that  point, 
and  also  in  the  decrease  of  the  number  of  troops  at  the  garri- 
son during  that  and  the  next  year. 

Int.  12. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  value  of  land  in  the 
town  of  Vancouver  and  its  immediate  vicinity  during  the 


62 


'■,,;,'< . 


period  that  you  Avcro  there  ?     If  yea,  please  to  state,  as  fully 
as  you  can,  what  its  value  then  was. 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  I  was  acquainted  with  its  value  at  that  time. 
The  lots  ill  Vancouver,  in  1857  and  1858,  were  sold,  an  ordinary 
building  lot  in  the  best  locati^^.ts  in  the  town,  as  high  as  eight 
hundred  dollars,  in  rny  k^owledge.  Farming  land  in  the  im- 
mediate neighborhood  of  Fort  Vancouver  could  be  bought  for 
forty  dollars  per  ace  for  the  choicest  improved  land.  Timber 
land,  just  below,  and  in  rear,  southwest  of  the  town  of  Vancou- 
ver, unimproved,  was  very  cheap.  I  had  a  half  section  offered 
to  me  for  one  thousand  dollars.  The  lots  in  Vancouver,  I  know, 
after  the  spring  of  1859,  decreased  at  least  one-third  in  value. 
I  am  not  able  to  say  in  reference  to  the  farming  lands,  whether 
thev  decreased  or  not. 

Int.  13, — State,  if  you  know,  whether  the  town  of  Vancou- 
ver has  lost  or  gained  in  wealth  and  population  from  1859  to 
the  present  time. 

Ans. — From  1859,  within  my  own  knowledge,  up  to  the  fall 
of  18G1,  it  did  decrease ;  from  the  fall  of  1861,  up  to  the  pres- 
ent time,  I  knew  nothing  except  by  report. 

Int.  14. — Are  there  any  suitable  places  on  the  water-front, 
in  the  town  of  Vancouver,  for  the  erection  of  wharves  ? 

Ans. — Not  in  the  immediate  front  of  the  town  [of]  Vancou- 
ver, to  accommodate  sea-going  steamers,  except  in  a  very 
high  sttige  of  water. 

Int.  15. — Do  you  know  the  ordinary  depth  of  water  at  the 
wharf  erected  by  the  Government,  just  above  the  town  of 
Vancouver  ;  and  is  not  that  the  best  place  for  a  wharf  in  that 
immediate  vicinity  ? 

Ans. — At  ordinary  stages  of  water,  the  depth  of  water  at 
the  Government  wharf  is  about  fifteen  feet. 

Int.  16. — What,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  effect,  if  any,  of  the 
city  of  Portland  on  the  growt!.  and  prosperity  of  Vanoouver ; 
and  what  are  the  grounds  of  your  opinion? 

Ans. — In  my  opinion,  it  destroys  all  its  prospects  as  a  com- 
mercial town.  The  capital  has  got  centered  at  Portland.  Port- 
land has  the  rich  agricultural  valley  of  Willamette  to  feed  it. 

(Witnesi's  opinion  objected  to.) 


63 

Int.  17. — Have  you  ever  known  of  any  lands,  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Vancouver,  which  have  been  cleared  of  timber  by 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  or  any  roads  which  have  been 
opened  by  them  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir  ;  I  do  not. 

Cross-Examination. 


h 


:\ 


Int.  1. — Is  not  all  your  personal  knowledge  of  the  matters 
you  have  testified  to,  about  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  post 
at  Vancouver  and  its  vicinity,  confined  to  the  time  you  were 
there,  between  the  years  1857  and  1861  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  2. — Examine  this  list  of  buildings,  stores,  and  work- 
shops, now  shown  to  you,  and  state  whether  they  were  o\\  at 
Vancouver  during  the  time  you  were  there;  and  if  nrt,  how 
many  of  them  were  there: 


<( 


1  dwelling-house,  170x30  feet,  lir 


1  do. 

1  do. 

2  do. 
2  do. 
1  do. 
1            do. 

Church. 

1  new  church, 

2  school-houses, 
1  new  office, 

1  old     do. 
1  kitchen, 
1  bake-house, 
1  prison, 
1  hospital, 


70x40  " 

50x30  " 

50x20  " 

30x20  " 

50x25  " 

30x21,  ceiled 

83x36  feet. 

50x40  " 

30x30  " 

30x30  " 

60x24  " 

40x25  " 

21x21  " 

32x22  " 


ed  and  ceiled. 
i  (t 


adjoining  the  Catholic 


1 


i 


STORES. 


"  1  store,   No.  1, 
1     do.     No.  2, 


86x40  feet. 
90x40     " 


is- 


' .'..,-;  "Ill 


64 


"1  store,  No.  3, 

100x40 

feet. 

1     do.     No.  4, 

100x40 

a 

1  salmon-store, 

100x40 

u 

1  receiving-store 

,  32x24 

" 

1  beef            do. 

75x30 

^4 

1   salt              do. 

27x12 

(( 

1  iron             do. 

40x30 

a 

1  granary, 

50x40 

a 

WORKSHOPS. 


"1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 


blacksmith's  forge, 
carpenter's  shop, 
cooper's        do. 
distillery, 
corn-kiln, 
saddler's  shop, 


45x30  feet. 
40x20     " 
70x30     « 
132x18 
18x18 
40x25 


li 


a 


u 


Indian  trading-shop,    80x30 
powder  magazine,         18x18 


u 


1  well-house, 


24x18 


Ans. — I  can't  tell  from  this  description  of  the  buildings 
what  were  there.     This  list  includes  the  Mission. 

Int.  3. — Was  not  the  store  occupied  by  quartermaster  a 
strong  building,  capable  of  holding  large  quantities  of  goods, 
and  free  from  leaking? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  it  was  a  large,  strong  building,  rough, 
made  of  logs  sawed  in  two,  unfinished  inside.  The  roof  was 
good  at  the  time  we  occupied  it.  It  was  capable  of  holding 
heavy  merchandise  on  the  first  floor. 

Int.  4. — W^as  this  store  in  any  better  way  than  the  other 
store-houses  of  the  same  kind  inside  the  stockade  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  it  was  the  best  store-house  within  the 
stockade,  except  the  one  used  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
as  a  store. 

Int.  5. — Were  not  the  buildings  of  the  Company,  after  they 
had  left  there,  uncared  for,  and  left  to  decay ;  and  were  not 
some  of  them  torn  down  either  by  the  military  authorities,  or 
the  soldiers,  at  their  own  will  ? 


65 


buildings 


iiaster   a 
f  goods, 

r,  rough, 
roof  was 
holding 

he  other 


•ities,  or 


Anft. — Ycp,  sir ;  no  person  took  any  charge  or  care  of  them. 
I  think  there  were  one  or  two  of  them  torn  down  by  soldiers. 

Int.  6. — Did  you  ever  look  for  or  examine  the  eountry  to 
see  if  you  could  discover  any  marks  or  boundaries  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company's  claim  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir  ;  I  never  looked  for  that  purpose. 

Jut.  7. — Is  not  the  underbrush  of  the  forest  of  very  rapid 
growth,  and  does  a  small  groAvth  of  firs  rapidly  come  up  on 
cleared  or  opened  forest  land  left  to  itself? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  I  ever  took  any  notice  of  that 
peculiarity. 

Int.  8. — Do  you  know  whether  the  town  of  Vancouver  was 
laid  out  by  tlie  county  commissioners  of  Clarke  county,  on  a 
triangular  piece  of  land  next  to  the  western  of  line  of  the  mil- 
itary reserve? 

Ans. — I  do  not. 

Int.  9. — Do  you  know  who  sold,  as  first  proprietor,  the  lots 
in  the  town? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  positively,  hut  think  it  was  Mrs.  Short. 

Int.  10. — Were  there  not  several  conflicting  titles  or  claims 
to  the  lands  in  and  around  Vancouver,  such  as  the  Missio'^ 
claim,  the  town-site  claim,  and  the  Short  claim  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  I  understand  there  was. 

Int.  11. — Did  not  the  Widow  Short  and  the  county  commis- 
sioners also  sell  lots  in  the  town  of  Vancouver,  as  being  owners 
of  it? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know,  from  my  own  personal  knowledge, 
whether  the  county  commissioners  did  or  not. 

Int.  12. — Were  you  not  well  acquainted  with  the  business 
men  and  citizens  of  the  town  of  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — By  general  reputation  I  was. 

Int.  13. — Give  the  names  of  those  persons  engaged  in  busi- 
ness in  Vancouver  in  1857  and  1858,  who  left  in  1859,  if  you 
can. 

Ans. — I  don't  know  as  I  can  recall  the  names  of  any. 

Int.  14, — Can   you  say  that   any  one   left,  except   a   Mr. 

Vaughn,  of  the  business  men  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  there  was  a  gentleman  Avho  kept  a  large 
5C 


II   Jiij),  mu  iwmim>  i)  miPM  -'■IDi'iMW 


I   "-'I 


W  ... 


>  '    si 


1) 
1*1 


..      11 
"       Hi 

I       tl 

tl 


66 

store — a  doctor  somebody;  I  can't  recall  the  name;  also  a 
Mr.  Rosonstock  or  Mr.  llosoiibaiiin. 

Dit.  15. — Is  not  the  Government  wharf  at  the  old  Hudson's 
Bav  landiniT  and  on  the  military  reserve:  and  is  not  the 
deepest  ^vater  oft'  the  military  reserve  front? 

An><. — The  Government  wharf  is  on  the  military  reserve. 
The  deepest  water  on  the  front  of  the  military  reserve  is  at 
the  wliarf. 

Jut.  !(!. — Do  you  know  on  what  part  of  the  water-front,  at 
and  near  Vancouver,  the  deepest  water  is  to  be  found?  If  so, 
state  it. 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  about  three-quarters  of  a  mile  below  the 
military  reserve,  and  just  below  the  saw-mill  and  below  the 
town,  is  the  deepest  water  near  the  bank. 

Int.  17. — Is  not  the  wharf  of  the  Government  built  directly 
on  the  bank  of  the  river,  and  would  not  a  Avharf  of  proper 
length,  run  out  from  the  bank  at  any  place  near  Vancouver, 
reach  deep  water  ? 

Ans. — If  you  go  far  enough  out,  except  at  one  particular 
point,  which  is  the  bar. 

I/d.  18. — What  is  the  greatest  depth  of  water  in  the  channel 
of  the  river  oft"  Vancouver  and  its  immediate  [vicinity]? 

Ans. — At  ordinary  stages  of  Avater,  excluding  the  bar,  it  is 
fourteen,  fourteen  and  a-half,  and  fifteen  feet.  The  depth  of 
the  water  in  front  of  the  wharf  is  about  the  average  depth  of 
the  channel. 

Charles  B.  Wagner, 
Brevet  Col.  and  Ass't  Quartermaister. 

Washington  City,  May  11th,  18G6. 


",rli*jSi' 

11  ■'  Mil    \H 


11;  - 


Testimony  of  Captain  William  A.  Howard. 

Captain    William  A.  Howard,  being  duly  sworn  according   to 
law,  deposes  and  says : 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  age,  place  of  residence,  and 
occupation  ? 


'«|| 


Avs. — My  name  is  William  A.  Howard;  aged  fifty  and  up- 
wards; my  occupation  is  captain  in  the  United  States  Revenue 
Marine;  niv  residence  is  New  York  Citv,  Now  York. 

Int.  2, — Have  you  ever  visited  and  observed  any  of  the  posts 
of  tlie  Hudson's  Jjay  Company  west  of  the  Rocky  ^Nlouiitains? 
If  yea,  jjlease  to  enumerate  tlie  d'tterent  posts  which  you  have 
visited. 

Ans. — I  visited  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz,  Nisqually,  Van- 
couver, Cape  Disap])ointment,  and  Astoria. 

Jnt.  •). —  How  often  have  you  visited  the  post  at  Vancouver, 
and  are  you  or  not  acquainted  with  the  fort  and  ])uiMings  at 
this  post  which  were  occupied  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  visited  there  repeatedly,  I  suppose  as  many  as  a 
dozen  times.  I  was  there  in  l^'A,  18.V2,  and  early  in  1S53.  I 
am  acquainted  with  the  fort  and  buildings  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  at  this  post. 

Int.  4. — Please  to  describe  the  character,  condition,  and 
value  of  the  fort  and  buildings  at  this  post  when  you  saw  and 
observed  them. 

Ana. — The  character  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  trad- 
ing post  and  fort  was  an  enclosed  picketed  post.  There  was 
certainly  one  bjstion  there.  The  buildings  were  made  in  the 
(.'anadian  style,  of  uprights,  I  think.  The  buildings  were  in 
good  order  at  that  time.  There  wore  granaries,  Avork-shops, 
dwellings,  and  stores,  large  buildings,  some  of  which  were  one 
hundred  feet  long,  I  think.  One  of  them  was,  certainly.  The 
buildings  were  rude  structures,  made  of  the  wood  of  the  country, 
built  by  the  common  labor  of  the  <lay.  I  think  one  hundred 
thousand  dollars  would  be  a  large  allowance  for  buildinf;  the 
fort  and  all  its  appurtenances.  1  mean  the  stockade  and  all 
the  buildings. 

Int.  5. — Arc  you  or  not  acquainted  with  the  navigation 
of  the  river  at  and  near  Vancouver  ?  If  yea,  please  to  state 
whether,  in  your  judgment,  it  be  practicable  to  establish  a  com- 
mercial town  at  this  place,  with  the  desirable  wharves  and 
facilities  to  accommodate  shipping. 

Ans — It  is  not  capable  of  that.  There  is  a  shoal  growing 
there  continually,  right  in  front  of  Vancouver,  which  destroys 


.„/.l/'l(l 

'1' 

:,'■:>  in' • 

»1" 

if- 

:il: 


iiili^' 


68 

anything  in  the  way  of  wharves  and  piers,  anil  destroys  navi- 
gation, which  renders  it  ineligible  for  a  good  site  for  a  town. 

Int.  (J. — Please  to  describe  separately  the  condition  and 
value  of  the  other  posts  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  which 
you  have  visited  and  observed  at  different  tin\cs. 

Alls.  —  The  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz,  when  I  visited  there, 
was  being  destroyed  very  fast,  being  washed  away  by  the  en- 
croaches of  the  river.  I  think  one  of  the  stores  was  in  the 
water.  I  visited  the  place  a  number  of  times,  and  these  en- 
croaches Avere  going  on  during  my  acquaintance  with  it.  When 
I  was  first  there  there  was  a  considerable  body  of  land  in  front 
of  it,  and  during  my  visits  this  land  was  being  gradually 
washed  away.  My  impression  is  that  at  my  last  visit  one  of 
the  buildings  had  been  somewhat  undermined  by  the  washing 
away.  At  Cape  Disappointment,  when  I  was  there  in  1853, 
I  saw  nothing  there  that  could  claim  to  be  a  station,  except  a 
fish  house,  or  something  of  that  kind.  I  remember  two  build- 
ings at  Astoria  when  I  was  there  in  1852  and  1853 — I  spent  a 
week  there  at  one  time — said  to  belong  to  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company.  It  was  not  used  as  a  trading  post.  These  buildings 
were  very  old,  out  of  order,  and  of  little  value. 

Cro88-Examination. 


lii 


3l«)il! 


;*:,s  ii: 


,f,iiiii>',  ill!" 


If  1 ' 


fi 


Int.  1. — While  at  Vancouver  did  you  have  occasion  to  sound 
the  river  in  front  of  the  old  stockade  or  near  it,  so  as  to  locate 
the  shoal  you  speak  of,  or  is  your  knowledge  of  it  derived  from 
hearsay  ? 

Ans. — My  knowledge  is  derived  from  my  own  observation. 
I  went  there  in  a  canoe  frequently.  I  was  there  in  the  United 
States  steamer  Active. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  this  water-front  since 
1853,  and  do  you  know  its  present  condition  of  your  own 
knowledge? 

Ans. — I  know  nothing. 

Int.  3. — Was  not  this  shoal  you  speak  of  a  shifting  bank  of 
sand,  moving  and  liable  to  be  swept  away  at  any  time  by  the 
strong  current  of  the  river  ? 


69 


•J 


'. 


i 


Ans. — This  was  evidently  of  shifting  sand.  The  shoal  was 
a  growing  shoal  in  front  of  Vancouver,  and  was  sufficient  to 
destroy  that  place  for  a  town  site  for  shipping. 

Int.  4. — Did  this  shoal  extend  down  the  river  so  as  to  render 
the  front  below  the  fort  a  poor  place  for  wharves? 

Ans. — I  thinic  at  this  time,  if  I  mistake  not,  this  shoal  was 
considerably  below  the  fort. 

Int.  5. — Do  you  know  the  fact  that  the  Government  wharf 
is  now  a  little  above  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  landing, 
and  has  fifteen  feet  of  water  at  ordinary  low  water  'i 

Alls. — I  know  there  is  deep  water  there.  I  am  confident 
there  was  twelve  or  fifteen  feet  of  water  for  some  distance 
along  that  point  inside  the  shoal.  " 

Int.  0. — Did  you  make  any  particular  examination  of  the 
buildings  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  inside  the  stockade, 
so  as  to  be  able  to  say  that  many  of  them  were  not  finished 
inside,  lined  and  ceiled,  and  some  of  them  framed  ? 

Ans. — I  made  no  particular  examination  of  the  houses,  but 
know  some  of  them  were  ceiled. 

W.  A.  HOAVARD, 

Captain  U.  S.  11.  llarine. 
Washington  City,  D.  C,  3Iai/  21,  18GG. 


Testimony  of  Joseph  K.  Barnes. 


ington 


Joseph  K.  Barnes,  being  duly  sworn  according  to  law,  says : 
Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  age,  place  of  residence,   and 
present  occupation  ? 

1/Js.— J. K.Barnes;  agedforty-nineyears;  residence,  Wash- 
city;    occupation,    Surgeon    General    United    States 
Army. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  ever  visited  Washington  Territory ;  if 
yea,  when  and  where  ? 

Ans.—l  resided  in  Washington  Territory  four  years,  be. 
tween  the  years  1857  to  1861,  at  Fort  Vancouver. 

Lit.  3. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  lands  and  buildings 


[•*).i;.if,i|V,. 


fi,i; '; 


.:jl 


"■ ..  'M  % 


70 

at  Vancouver  which  are  claimed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  4. — Have  you  ever  made  any  estimate  of  tlic  value  of 
the  fort  and  buildinrif.s  at  Vancouver  ■vvliich  Avcrc  formerly 
claimed  and  occupied  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  CompaTiy  ;  if  yea, 
when,  and  under  what  circumstances? 

Ans. — T  Avas  a  member  of  a  board  of  survey,  ordered  to 
make  an  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  buildings  owned  by  the 
Hudson's  Bav  Companv  at  Fort  Van  ouver. 

Int.  i). — Please  to  look  at  the  paper  here  presented,  and 
marked  A  and  annexed,  and  state  whether  the  same  be  a  true 
copy  of  the  report  which  was  made  and  signed  by  you  and 
others  in  pursuance  of  the  order  for  a  survey. 

Ans. — It  is  a  true  copy,  according  to  my  best  judgment  and 
belief. 

(The  admission  of  the  above  paper  objected  to,  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  the  report  and  decision  of  a  military  board  or  tribunal 
on  some  of  the  matters  that  have  been,  or  may  be,  in  (juestion 
before  this  joint  commission  ;  and  that,  by  the  date  of  the 
report,  it  appears  to  have  been  made  after  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  had  left  the  premises,  under  notification  of  the  com- 
manding oificcr  of  the  department  that  they  had  no  rights 
therein  ;  and,  further,  that  the  Company  had  no  notice  what- 
ever of  the  proceeding.) 

Int.  0. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  character  and  value 
of  any  other  posts  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ?  If  yea, 
please  to  enumerate  and  describe  them. 

Ans. — No,  sir  ;  I  am  not. 

Int.  7. — What  was  the  condition  of  the  buildings  at  Van- 
couver at  the  time  that  your  attention  was  called  to  them  ; 
and  what,  in  your  opinion,  Avas  their  value  at  that  time? 

(Objectetl  to  as  incompetent.) 

Ans. — The  condition  was  the  same  as  at  the  time  when 
vacated  by  the  Company;  and  they  were  utterly  valueless, 
except  for  tlie  Company's  purpose. 

Int.  8. — Hid  you,  while  there,  observe  the  policy  of  the  Com- 
pany in  regard  to  the  settlement  of  the  country  by  American 


71 


Bay  Com- 


ic value  of 

formerly 

y;  if  yea, 

)r(lere(l  to 
od  by  the 

ntcd,  and 

be  a  true 

Y  you  and 

fluent  and 

he  ground 
r  tribunal 
I  (question 
to  of  the 
son's  Bay 
'  the  com- 
no  rights 
lice  what- 

and  value 
If  yea. 


■me  when 
valueless, 


citizens  ?  If  yea,  please  to  state  whether  the  same  was  favor- 
iiblo  or  otherwise. 

AtiH. — I  had  no  opportunity  of  judging  of  the  policy  of  the 
Company  in  this  respect. 

Int.  t>. — Does  this  report,  a  copy  of  which  has  boon  produced 
liere,  contain  a  true  and  accurate  account  and  estimate  of  the 
fort  and  buildings  of  the  Company  at  the  time  the  same  were 
examined  by  you;  and  have  you  any  desire  or  wish  to  alter 
the  opinica  which  you  then  expressed  in  regard  to  the  char- 
acter and  value  of  the  fort  and  l)uil<lings. 

(Objected  to,  on  the  same  ground  as  the  other,  in  reference 
to  the  report,  and  for  irrelevancy.) 

Ani<. — It  does  contain  a  true  account ;  and  I  have  not  changed 


my  opinion. 


Cross-Examination. 


Int.  1. — Had  you  ever  purchased  lumber,  or  become  ac- 
quainted with  the  price  of  it,  at  the  time  you  have  testified  to 
in  answer  to  question  7? 

Ans. — I  have  not. 

Int.  2. — Do  you  know  anything  of  the  value  of  material, 
such  as  boards,  lumber,  and  shingles,  when  once  used  in  build- 
ing, when  used  for  other  buildings  and  other  purposes  ? 

Ans. — In  this  instance  I  kncAV.  I  took  the  pains  to  learn 
the  comparative  value  of  this  material. 

Int.  o. — Is  this  opinion  you  have  given  here,  in  answer  to 
interrogatory  7,  your  own  opinion,  from  your  personal  knowl- 
edge, or  is  it  an  opinion  formed  from  information  that  came  to 
you  as  member  of  a  board  of  officers  ? 

Ans. — It  is  my  personal  opinion,  sustained  by  information 
obtained. 

Int.  4. — Was  this  personal  opinion  formed  before  you  went 
on  that  board? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir.  It  was  a  matter  of  observation,  extending 
over  a  period  of  some  time. 

Int.  5. — How  many  witnesses  were  examined  by  this  board, 
if  any;  and  were  any  of  them  carpenters  or  builders  ;  and,  if 


72 


%} 


no  witnesses  were  examined,  fi-om  what  source  did  you  receive 
the  information  you  liave  spoken  of? 

Ans. — The  board  advised  with  and  took  the  opinion  of 
waster  carpenters  and  buihlers;  men  who  had  been  employed 
by  the  Government  as  such  ;  but  I  am  unable  to  say  how  many 
or  who  they  were  after  this  lapse  of  time. 

Int.  0. — Were  those  Avitnesses  or  persons  you  have  spoken 
of  SAvorn,  or  were  they  heard  when  the  board  was  in  session? 

Alls. — They  were  not  sworn.  Their  opinion  was  obtained 
while  the  board  was  in  session. 

Int.  7. — Were  not  these  opinions  obtained  by  the  members 
of  the  board  individually  in  some  instances? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Int.  8. — By  the  report  it  appears  that  the  board  met  at 
one  o'clock  p.  m.  on  the  day  the  order  issued.  How  long  was 
the  board  in  session? 

A71S. — My  recollection  is  they  occupied  the  most  of  the  day. 

Ini.  9. — Did  you  personally,  or  any  member  of  the  board, 
examine  with  care  the  sills  of  the  Governor's  house? 

Ans. — They  all  did,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Int.  10. — Were  you  accompanied  by  any  carpenter  or  builder 
at  that  time,  or  were  your  examinations  made  in  person? 

Ans. — To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  one  or  more  carpen- 
ters or  builders  were  with  us  throughout  the  whole  examina- 
tion. 

Int.  11. — Did  you  not  examine  these  buildings  with  a  view 
to  the  use  they  would  be  to  the  military  authorities  on  a  mili- 
tary reserve  ? 

Ans. — They  were  examined  with  a  view  to  the  valuation  of 
the  material  for  any  military  purpose. 

Int.  12. — Was  not  the  opinion  you  have  expressed  based  on 
the  value  of  the  material  contained  in  these  buildings  for 
other  purposes  when  pulled  down  ? 

A71S. — They  were  of  no  use  to  the  Government  as  they 
stood.     They  were  simply  for  the  value  of  the  material. 

Int.  13. — Were  not  these  buildings  left  remaining  on  the 
reserve,  in  your  opinion,  in  the  way  of  the  military  author- 
ities and  of  no  use  to  them? 


i6 


Ans. — Tlioy  wove  of  no  possible  use  to  the  military  author- 
ities as  tliev  stoo<l. 

Int.  14. — Before  these  buildings  were  left  by  the  Company 
did  they  not  answer  the  purposes  for  which  they  were  used, 
as  dwellini:;-hon^es,  stores,  and  so  forth,  and  protect  and 
shelter  the  families  and  goods  and  stores  of  the  Company? 

Ans. — T  considered  them  poor  store-houses  and  vt-ry  poor 
dwellings. 

Int.  1').  —Would  any  person  other  than  military  authorities 
have  been  allowed  to  occupy  these  buildin;^    on  the  reserve? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Int.  in. — Did  your  opinion  of  the  value  of  this  material 
agree  with  that  of  the  board,  or  did  you  differ  with  them? 

Ans. — I  can't  answer  that  question  at  this  time. 

Int.  17. — Does  your  opinion  now  agree  with  that  set  out  in 
that  report? 

Ans. — I  have  had  no  reason  to  alter  my  opinion. 

Int.  18. — Your  opinion  noAv  is,  then,  that  these  buildings 
had  the  value  that  is  mentioned  in  the  report? 


Ans.—Y 


es,  SI 


r;  it  "was  a  fair  valuation. 


Examinatlon-in-Chief  Resumed. 


Int.  1. — What  was  the  condition  of  the  town  of  Vancouver 
when  you  left  there  in  1801,  as  compared  with  its  condition 
when  you  went  there  in  1857? 

Ans. — The  excitement  produced  by  the  discoveries  of  gold 
on  the  upper  Columbia,  in  18G1,  acted  prejudicially  to  Van- 
couver by  removing  most  of  the  industrial  population. 

Int.  2. — In  your  opinion,  is  the  town  of  Vancouver  likely 
to  become  a  place  of  any  considerable  commercial  importance? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans. — I  have  no  data  from  which  to  form  an  opinion. 

Int.  3. — Are  the  other  members  of  the  board  of  survey  now 
living? 

Atis. — To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  they  are  both  dead. 


""''*'l'i^"lW 


(Jro»s(-E.rani  ui  at  ion  Hex  u  ni  cd. 

Jut.  1. — At  wliat  time  of  the  year  l^<01  did  you  leave  Van- 
couver? 

Ann. — In  the  latter  part  of  June,  IHOl. 

Inf.  2. — Could  this  population  tiiat  went  to  the  tnines  have 
gone  there  and  returned  before  you  left,  in  June? 

Anx. — No;  they  could  not. 

Inf.  3. — Did   these   jieojjle  who   had  wives   or  families,  in 
most  instances,  leave  them  at  Vancouver? 

An^. — A  great  many  took  their  families  with  them. 

J.  K.  Bahxks, 
Surgeon  General  United  Statdi. 

Washington  City,  D,  C,  June  0,  18(50. 


A. 

Proeecdings  of  a  hoard  of  officers  whieh  convened  at  Fort  Van- 
couver, Washington  Territory,  hg  virtue  of  the  following 
order,  viz : 

IIkADQUAUTEKS  DKrARTMENT  OF  OrEUON, 

Fort  Vancouver,  W.  T.,  June  15,  18(.i0. 

Special  Orders,  1 

No.  08.  / 

A  board  of  officers  wmII  convene  at  Fort  Vancouver,  Wash- 
ington Territory,  to-day  at  one  o'clock,  to  examine  and  report 
the  value  of  the  buildings  on  the  military  reserve  at  Fort 
Vancouver  vacated  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

The  board  will  further  report  whether  any  of  these  buildings 
can  be  useful  to  the  public  service. 


Detail  for  the  Board. 


1.  Bvt.  Lieut.  Colonel  G.  Nauman,  Major  M  Artillery. 

2.  Surgeon  J.  K.  Barnes,  llediccd  Department. 


iiics  iiiive 


7r. 

n.  r.vt.  ]\rnj(.r  John  F.  UkyxoM);^,  ('<ii>f<iiii  :''/  Artlll-rii. 
Ut  liioiitciiiiiit  Cii.\rNri:YMc'Ki:r,vi;u,  ■)</ Jrti/li  rt/,  H-runlvr. 
I3y. order  of  General  llAUNiiV. 

A,  l'r,i;.\si>.\T(«.v, 
Ciii>f.  %1  DriKjiiuHH,  A.  .1.  Ailjt  iirttl 

FullT  VaNCOU villi,  WASIirXCToN  TkIUUTi'ILY, 

oxK  O'CLOCK,  r.  M., ./(///.  I."),  ij?t;o. 

Tlio  board  inot  pursuant  to  tin-  above  ordiT  :  ])ri'Sont,  all 
the  mcinl)c'rri  and  the  Uocorder.  The  board  llirn  procroded  to 
oxamino  and  appraise  tlic  buiblinj^s  on  llie  military  reserve 
vacated  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

The  board  doterniincd,  respecting  the  probal)le  value  of 
these  buildini^s,  as  follows: 

No.  1. — Store-house  on  the  bank  of  the  river  in  rear  of  the 
Government  wharf,  known  as  the  salmon-house.  Tiiis  liuild- 
iiig  has  been  used  by  the  depot  (luarternnister  at  dillerent 
times  as  a  temporary  storehouse,  but  is  noAv  useless  for  that 
purpose.     Estimated  value  of  material,  §1-'). 

No.  2, — Two-storied  building,  with  adjoining  shed  and  out- 
house, used  by  the  ordnance  department  as  store-house,  »S:c. ; 
out  of  repair,  and  useless  except  for  the  nnjst  temporary 
purposes.     Estimated  value  of  material,  $")0. 

No.  3. — rrincipal  dwelling-house  inside  of  pickets,  known 
as  Governor's  house ;  sills,  llooring,  and  wood-work  generally 
so  much  decayed  as  to  be  uninhabitable;  entirely  useless  for 
any  military  purpose.     Estimated  value  of  material,  $100. 

No.  4.— kitchen,  (Governor's  house,)  entirely  out  of  repair, 
useless  to  the  public  service.     Material  of  no  value. 

No.  5. — Butcher  shop,  &c.,  in  a  ruinous  condition.  Mate- 
rial of  no  value. 

No.  G. — Bake-house,  in  a  ruinous  condition.     jSIaterial  of 

no  value. 

No.  7. — Long  building,  used  as  quarters  for  employus,  so 
auch  out  of  repair  as  to  be  uninhabitable  and  useless  for  any 
military  purpose.     Estimated  value  of  material,  $20. 

No.  8. — Small  store-house,  long  since  abandoned  by  the 
Company,  in  a  ruinous  condition.     Material  of  no  value. 


<'^M 


W"., 


i'r 


■  *, 


t  ■ 


76 

No.  0. — Blacksmith  shop,  long  since  abandoned  by  the 
Company,  in  a  ruinous  condition.     Materials  of  no  value. 

No.  10. — Fur-house,  long  since  abandoned  by  the  Company, 
in  a  ruinous  condition.     Material  of  no  value. 

No.  11. — Porter  s  lodge,  useless  for  any  military  purpose. 
Materials  of  no  value. 

Nos.  12,  T3,  and  14. — Three  large  store-houses,  useless  for 
any  purpose  connected  with  the  public  service.  Estimated 
value  of  material,  $800. 

No.  lo. — Hudson's  Bay  Company's  store,  entirely  unsuitable 
for  any  military  purpose.     Estimated  value  of  material,  $150. 

No.  10. — Block-hou&o,  in  a  ruinous  condition.  Material  of 
no  value. 

No.  17. — Grar.ary,  entirely  unsuited  to  any  purpose  of  the 
public  service.     Material  of  no  value. 

No.  18. — Carpenter's  wheehvright  shop,  long  since  aban- 
doned by  the  Company,  in  a  ruinous  condition.  Materials 
of  no  value. 

No.  10. — Company's  office,  in  tolerable  repair,  might  be 
made  use  of  temporarily.     Estimated  value  of  material,  $75. 

No.  20. — Guar<l-house,  long  since  abandoned  by  the  Com- 
pany, in  a  ruinous  condition.     Material  of  no  value. 

No.  21. — Dwelling-house,  formerly  occupied  by  Mr.  Gra- 
hame,  in  a  ruinous  condition.     Material  of  no  value. 

No.  22. — Small  magazine,  useless  to  the  public  service. 
Material  of  no  value. 

No.  23. — Dweiiing-house  on  the  bank  of  the  river,  near  the 
eastern  edge  of  the  reservation.     Estimated  value,  $100. 

No.  24. — Dwelling-house  on  the  bank  of  the  river,  near  the 
Government  -wharf.     Estimated  value,  $100. 

Finally,  four  hovels,  outside  of  and  near  the  southeast  cor- 
ner of  the  pickets,  in  a  dilapidati  d  condition,  and  useless  to 
the  public  service.     Materials  of  no  value. 

The  board  is  of  the  opinion  that  none  of  the  buildings  within 
the  pickets  are  worth  repairing  for  any  military  purpose,  and 
that,  in  conse([uencc  of  the  age,  decayed  condition,  and 
crowded  position  of  the  buildings,  the  sanitary  police  of  the 
place  demands  that  they  be  destroyed  by  fire,  after  removing 


u 


Gra- 


V 


li 


V3 


-j-_ 

"vO 


■^ 


>N. 


1- — I 


LJ 


I — 


I      ! 


^ 


r 


i5j 


.5J 


i^ 


r"V 


— I     1 


7\ 


) I 


^ 


^' 


.1^.J 


=^ 


^ 


o     W 


w 


77 

such  of  the  material  as  may  be  found  to  be  of  sufficient  value. 
The  board  having   ho  fur  .her  business  before  it,  then  ad- 
journed sine  die. 

GEOiifiE  Naumax, 
Brevet  Lieut.  Col.,  Major  <^d  ArtiUerif. 
Jos.  K.  Bauxks, 
John  F.  llEvxoLr)-;, 
Captain,  Brevet  Major  3tZ  Artillery. 

ClIAUNCEY  McKeEVER, 

\»t  Lieut.  3t?  Artillery,  Recorder. 


Official  copy. 


E.  D.  Townsend, 
Assistant  Adjutant  G-  neral. 


Testimony  of  Ciiauncey  McKeever. 


Gen.    Chauneey  McKeever,  being  duly  sworn,  according    to 
law,  deposes  and  says: 

Int,  1. — What  is  your  name,  age,  place  of  residence  and 
occupation  ? 

Ans. — Chauncey  McKeever ;  Major  in  Adjutant  General'^; 
Department,  Brevet  Brigadier  General  United  States  Army; 
aged  thirty-six  years;  residence,  Washington  City. 

Lit.  2. — Have  you  ever  resided  in  Washington  Territory; 
if  yea,  when  and  where  ? 

Ans. — I  resided  there  about  ten  months,  from  about  No- 
vember, 18')i3,  to  September,  1850,  at  Fort  Steihicoom,  and 
afterwards  at  Fort  Vancouver  for  about  a  year,  from  Septem- 
ber, 185lt,  to  September,  18(30. 

Int.  3. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  lands  and  buiblingi- 
at  Vancouver  which  were  formerly  claimed  and  ocjupied  by 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  I  have  been  mer  most  all  of  tliem. 

Int.  4. — Did  you  ever  estimate,  as  a  member  of  a  board  of 
military  survey,  the  lands  and  buildings  at  Vancouver  which 


N  ::■ 


I--  5  ;l    .      I'll 


.'■1':;. 


Ii«- 


■       78 

were  formerly  occiipiod  l)y  tlio  lludson's  Bay  Conip.any  ;  if 
yea,  ■wlieii  ? 

Ajia. — I  was  ;.  mcinljor  of  a  board  wliicli  was  directed  to 
make  an  estimato  of  tlie  value  of  the  buildings,  but  not  of 
the  bimls,  and  was  rocorder  for  a  second  board  for  tlie  same 
purpose,  l)ut  liail  no  voice  in  tlie  proceedings  of  tlie  last  board. 
The  first  survey  was  made  in  MaVcli,  18G0,  and  the  second  in 
June  of  the  same  year. 

lilt.  f). — IMcase  to  look  at  the  paper  here  produceil,  and 
state  whether,  in  your  opinion,  the  same  be  a  true  copy  of  the 
report  whidi  was  made  by  you  and  others  in  pursuance  of  a 
special  order  from  General  Harney. 

A71S. — I  beliovt-  tills  to  bo  a  true  copy  of  tlie  report. 

(All  evidcMice  with  reforcnce  to  the  authenticity  of  this  re- 
port, and  the  report  Itself,  is  objected  to  as  irrelevant  and  in- 
competent, the  re|»ort  purporting  to  contain,  and  to  be  the 
proceedings  and  deelslons  of  a  military  board  or  tribunal  sit- 
ting to  detei-mlne  and  decide  on  matters  that  have  been  or 
may  l>e  in  ([uestloii  before  this  commission.) 

Inf.  (i. — Did  you  personally  inspect  and  appraise  the  build- 
ings and  im])rovenieiits  at  Vancouver  which  were  occupied  by 
the  Hudson's  Day  Company?  If  yea,  please  to  describe  their 
condition  at  the  time  you  examined  them,  and  your  judg- 
ment of  tiieir  value  at  that  time. 

Aus. — I  did  examine  them.  Although  I  had  no  vote,  I 
participated  in  the  discussions  and  gave  my  opinion.  My 
impression  is  that  the  ap])raisement  was  made  by  myself  and 
one  other  member  of  the  board.  I  inspected  the  buildings  in 
June,  lS<Ii>.  They  were  all  of  them  in  a  very  dilapidated 
condition.  Most  of  the  lumber  and  timber  about  them  was 
very  much  decayed.  I  considered  the  whole  of  them  worth 
about  one  thousand  dollars. 

Int.  7. — Did  you  ever  give  any  attention  to  the  growth  and 
development  of  the  country  on  the  Pj,cific  coast,  and  the 
probablo  course  of  trade  there  in  the  future;  if  yea,  what,  in 
your  oi)inion,  is  tl.'c  probability  of  building  up  a  large  com- 
mercial town  at  Vancouver? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  that  I  have  ever  given  any  great  attcn- 


79 

tioji  to  this  sul)jet't,  but  I  have  always  taken  the  ground 
there  was  no  jrreat  value  to  be  attiicheil  to  Vaueouvor  as  a 
comuiereial  ))lace,  for  the  reason  there  is  no  back  country 
likely  to  be  settled  back  of  Vancouver.  The  forests  are  very 
dense.  1  don't  think  it  would  ])ay  to  clear  them.  There  is  very 
little  o]»en  |)rairic  land.  An<l  Portland,  at  that  time,  was  a 
large  placc^,  and  had  the  start  of  A'ancouver,  and  was  near 
enough  to  interfere  with  its  progress  as  a  commercial  place. 
And  the  bar  in  the  river  near  A^inconver  Avas  constantly 
changing  with  the  spring  freshets.  AVhere  there  might  be  a 
fine  depth  of  water  one  year,  there  mitrht  be  a  sand-bar  the 
next  year,  right  in  front  of  the  town. 

Crossi-E.rai)iiiiation. 


Int.  1. — Is  the  testimony  you  have  given  in  reference  to 
the  condition  of  the  buiblings  in  June,  LSiiO,  derived  from  an 
insj)ectio?i  of  those  buildings  in  that  month,  as  one  of  the 
board  you  have  mentioned? 

Ans. — Ves,  sir. 

Int.  2. — That  knowledge  came  to  you  then  in  that  capacity 
and  at  that  time,  did  it? 

A)is. —  Ves,  sir. 

Int.  o. — Your  board  met  at  one  o'clock  p.  ni.  How  long 
after  this  time  did  j^ou  commence  your  examination  of  the 
buildings,  and  for  how  long  a  time  did  you  continue  it? 

Anii. — I  can't  say  positively,  but  I  rememl)er  we  got  through 
some  tinio  that  afternoon.  I  don't  think  we  were  over  three 
hours. 

Int.  4. — You  speak  of  the  decay  of  the  buildings.  Did  you 
cause  the  linings  to  be  taken  off  of  the  lined  buildings  to  exam- 
ine the  inside  frames,  or  did  you  do  nu)rc  than  merely  look  at 
the  exposed  portions  of  the  buiblings? 

Ans. — ^Ve  did  more  than  look  at  the  exposed  portions  of 
the  buildings;  we  occasionally  pulled  up  a  plank,  anu  we  tried 
to  see  if  a  nail  would  hold  in  some  of  the  wood. 

Int.  5. — Do  you  consider  yourself  a  judge  of  carpenter's 
work  or  the  value  of  material? 


^wws^ntfaifui    ■>ijiiii 


■  ^WfimiKJfJiiiWm 


r 


Mil 
Ml 


*'■   .■      'I'll 


:.  -i 


'%!,: 


|.:|^ 


■■.■■l;»    i  1 


80 

Ans. — I  do  not  consider  myself  a  very  competent  judge,  but 
I  know  something  about  it,  having  had  charge  of  the  erection 
of  some  (fovernment  buihlings,  and  having  purchased  the  ma- 
terials at  Steilacoom. 

Int.  0. — Were  there  any  carpenters  with  you,  ^r  were  any 
examined  by  the  board  at  this  time? 

Ans. — I  think  not.  I  think  there  was  no  one  except  the 
members  of  the  uoard. 

Int.  7. — Do  you  feel  certain  that  the  officers  comprising  the 
board  alone  examined  these  buildings  in  the  three  hours  you 
mention,  and  then,  witliout  getting  information  from  builders 
or  carpenters,  formed  .heir  opinion':" 

Ans. — I  think  there  was  no  one  with  the  board  at  the  time 
we  examined  the  buildings.  I  don't  know  whether  any  of  the 
board  consulted  the  head  carpenter  or  not. 

Int.  8. — Had  not  these  buildings  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, since  their  departure,  been  exposed  to  the  soldiers,  and 
been  used  by  them  for  any  purpose  they  saw  fit? 

Ans. — I  think  not.  I  doubt  Avhether  they  had  been  touched. 
I  think  this  examination  was  about  a  month  after  the  Com- 
pany left,  and  possibly  less  than  that  time. 

I7it.  9. — Is  not  your  opinion  of  the  value  of  these  liuildings 
a  military  value,  with  reference  to  the  ground  they  were  on, 
being  ou  a  military  reserve,  from  which  they  would  have  to  be 
taken  down  and  removed? 

Atis. — y\y  oi)inion  of  the  value  was  based  on  what  they 
would  be  worth,  when  sold,  to  be  taken  down  and  removed. 

Inl.  10. — Have  vx>u  been  in  Oretcon  or  Washino-ton  since  the 
trade  with  the  mining  country  east  of  the  Cascades  has  become 
so  large  and  valual)le'.'' 

Ahs. — I  have  not  been  there  since  October,  I860. 

Iwt.  11. — Do  yoin  know  anything  of  the  history  of  this  shift- 
ing bar  or  sand-ba*nk  yoa  have  spoken  of,  for  several  years 
years  before  you  noticed  it,  or  anything  at  all  of  it,  except 
during  the  tim>e  vou  were  at  Vancouver? 

Ani^. — I  re'imieinber  I  could  not  get  up  to  the  wharf-boat  in 
the  steamer  in  It^oo;  and  when  I  wont  there  in  18'/'  there  was 
a  wharf  anloove  the  town  on   the  military   reserv*;,  and  large 


i|pipiia«iii^  »wi,lIi».B^HWiM 


81 

steamers  went  up  to  it.  This  is  all  my  knowledge  about  the 
bank,  and  hearing  others  speak  of  the  shifting  of  the  bar. 
Just  before  I  left  tiiero  the  ocean  steamer  had  to  lay  below  the 
town  and  communicate  by  means  of  a  small  boat. 

Int.  12. — Do  you  know  whether  that  steamer  being  there 
was  caused  by  the  lowncssof  the  water,  or  some  other  reason, 
from  having  soldiers  on  board':' 

Ans. — My  understanding  was  it  was  caused  by  the  lowness 
of  the  water.     I  am  not  certain. 

Examination-m- Chief  Resumed. 

Int.  1. — You  have  stated  in  your  cross-cxumination  that  you 
estimated  the  value  of  these  buildings  and  improvements  on 
the  supposition  that  they  were  to  be  taken  doAvn  and  removed. 
Would  they,  in  your  opinion,  have  possessed  any  additional 
value  if  they  could  have  been  suffered  to  remain? 

Ans. — I  don't  think  they  would.  I  don't  think  there  was 
any  one  there  who  wanted  them  for  any  other  purpose  than 
for  the  lumber.     They  were  not  in  habitable  condition. 

ClIAUNCEY    McKeEVER, 

Brevet  Bngadier  General  and  A.  A.  G. 
Washington,  D.  C,  June  12,  18G6. 


Proceedings  of  a  hoard  of  officers  loJiich  convened  at  Fort  Van- 
couver, W.  T.,  pursuant  to  the  following  order: 

[extract.] 

Headquarters  Department  of  Oregon, 
Fort  Vanccjver,  W.  T.,  Fehruarg  28th,  18G0. 
Special  Order,  No.  25. 

1.  .  .  A  board  of  officers  will  convene  at  Fort  Vancouver 
on'the  1st  day  of  March,  1800,  at  eleven  o'clock,  A.  M.,  or  as 
soon  thereafter  as  practicable,  to  examine  and  re{)ort  u])on  the 
value  of  certain  improvements  on  the  military  reserve  placed 
there  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  in  the  event  of  any  com- 
pensation being  alloAvcd  for  them  hereafter  by  the  Government. 
GO 


82 


!    "it  i 


*i:i  I- 


Detail  for  the  Board. 

Captain  A.  J.  SJIITII,  1st  I)raf/oon8. 

Captain  J.  A.  ITardih,  3/v?  Artillert/. 

1st  Lieutenant  Ciiaun'cey  Mc.vKeever,  3nZ  Artillery. 

*  ;|;  ;(;  ^  4:  *  * 

By  order  of  General  Harney. 

A.  Pleasonton, 

Captain  2d  Drar/oons,  A.  A.  Adft.  Gen  I. 

Fort  Vancouver,  W.  T., 
Eleven  0' Clock,  A.  M.,  March  l.s^  18G0. 

The  board  met  pursuant  to  the  above  order.  All  the  mem- 
bers present.  The  board  then  proceeded  to  examine  certain 
improvements  on  the  military  reserve  placed  there  by  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  many  years  ago,  and  lying  to  thcAvestof  a 
line  of  stakes  commencing  at  a  point  about  eighty  yards  to 
the  east  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  running  from  thence  in 
a  southerly  direction  to  the  river.  The  board  find  that  upon 
this  portion  of  the  reserve  there  are  some  four  or  five  hundred 
yards  offences,  eight  buildings  claimed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  (not  including  the  house  occupied  by  Mrs.  Stubbs,) 
which  the  board  understand  is  not  intended  to  be  removed  at 
present. 

The  board  find  that  the  fence  is  so  much  decayed  as  to  be 
of  no  value,  and  that  the  buildings  are  mere  shells,  rapidly 
going  to  decay,  most  of  them  propped  up  to  prevent  their  fall- 
ing down,  the  only  exception  being  the  dwelling-house  in  front 
of  the  depot  quartermaster's  office,  which,  although  occupied, 
is  also  in  a  dilapidated  condition. 

The  board  estimate  the  total  value  of  the  above  improve- 
ments at  $250,  (two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars.) 

There  being  no  further  business  before  it,  the  board  adjourned 

"sme  die.'' 

A.  J.  Smith, 

Captain  1st  Dragoons,  Present. 

Jas.  a.  Hardie, 

Ccptain  Brd  Artillery. 
Chauncey  McKeever, 

1st  Lieutenant  Bd  Artillery,  Recorder. 


•■  i 


(I 
•  1 


Approved. 


88 

Headquarters  Dep't  op  Oregox, 
Fort  Vancouver,  W.  T.,  March  5,  18G0. 

Wm.  S.  Harney, 
Briyadier  General  Commanding. 


Official  copy. 


E.    D.    TOWNSEND, 

Assistant  Adjutant  General. 


Testimony  oe  Major  General  Andrew  J.  Smith. 

Major  General  Andrew  J.  Smith,  being  duly  sworn  according 
to  law,  says : 

Int.  1. — Wliat  is  your  name,  age,  place  of  residence,  and 
occupation  ? 

Ans. — A.  J.  Smith,  of  lawful  age.  I  belong  to  the  United 
States  Army,  am  Lieutenant  Colonel  5th  Regiment  of  Cav- 
alry, Brevet  Major  General  United  States  Army. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  ever  resided  in  Washington  Territory ;  if 
yea,  when  and  where  ? 

Ans. — I  was  stationed  at  Fort  Vancouver  in  the  winter  and 
spring  of  18G0.  I  have  passed  and  repassed  Fort  Vancouver 
several  times  since  on  my  way  from  Walla- Walla  to  Portland 
San  Francisco.  I  was  stationed  at  Walla-Walla  in  the  sum- 
mer of  18G0. 

Int.  3. — Arc  you  acquainted  with  the  fort  and  buildings  at 
the  post  of  Vancouver,  which  were  formerly  claimed  and  occu- 
pied by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  am. 

Int.  4. — Have  you  ever  examined  and  appraised  any  of  the 
improvements  and  buildings  at  this  post  which  were  claimed 
by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company ;  if  yea,  what  buildings  and 
improvements  have  you  examined,  with  the  view  of  ascertain- 
ing their  value,  and  where  ? 


LM-K" 

I, 


I .,. 


I-'  %!, 


C«' 


1,.,-  j' 


'" ■I 


84 

^ns, — I  recollect  being  a  member  of  a  ])oar(l,  in  1800,  to 
examine  the  improvements  tliat  belonged  to  the  lliulson's  Tlay 
Conipiitiy,  and  assess  the  valne  as  they  then  stood,  or  would 
be  to  the  Government,  in  ease  they  should  full  into  our  hands. 

Jnf.  T). — What  was  the  condition,  character,  and  value  of 
the  buililings,  at  the  time  your  attention  was  called  to  them? 

A71S. — Very  dilapidated,  not  habitable,  of  no  value  what- 
ever to  the  Government.  I  refer  to  the  buildings  on  the  out- 
side. Also  the  fences  that  enclosed  the  garden  and  orchard 
were  very  dilapidated. 

Int.  0. — Did  you  ever  observe  the  character  and  condition 
of  the  stockade,  and  the  buildings  within  it,  while  you  were 
there?    If  yea,  please  to  describe  them  as  nearly  as  you  can. 

Ans. — I  several  times  visited  the  buildings  inside  the  stock- 
ade of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  know  that  they  were 
in  a  very  dilapidated  condition,  the  larger  store-houses  being 
propped  up,  to  prevent  them  from  falling  down.  They  were 
built  of  what  we  called  puncheons.  They  were  going  to  decay 
rapidly — dry  rot. 

Int.  7. — What,  in  your  opinion,  was  the  value  of  their 
stockade,  and  the  buildings  within  it,  at  the  time  that  you 
speak  of? 

Ans. — I  should  say  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  would 
cover  the  value  to  the  Government.  The  stockade  was  worth 
nothing,  except  for  fire-wood.  I  don't  feel  competent  to  give 
an  opinion  as  to  the  value  to  any  other  person. 

Ini.  8. — Please  to  look  at  the  paper  herewith  presented, 
and  state  whether  the  same,  in  your  opinion,  is  a  true  copy  of 
the  report  of  survey  made  by  you  and  others,  in  pursuance  of 
an  order  from  General  Ilardie. 

Ans. — Not  knowing,  I  presume  it  is. 

(xYnything  in  reference  to  this  report,  and  the  report  itself, 
objected  to  on  the  same  grounds  set  out  in  the  deposition  of 
McKeevei 


jey 


•) 


Cross- Examination. 


Int.  1. — Is  the  testimony  you  have  given  here  your  opinion, 


i 


\ 


1 


85 


N 


as  an  actiii;^  iiiombor  of  a  boanl  to  inspect  and  assc^ss  tlic 
value  of  certain  improveinciits  an<l  buildings  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Coni|(any? 

Ann. — As  T  can  recollect  it,  it  is. 

Int.  2. — Was  that  opinion  reduced  to  writing? 

Ann. — It  was  at  the  time. 

(Tlie  above  tcstimony-in-cliii-f  objectt^d  to.) 

Int.  3. — Is  not  the  sum  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars 
you  have  mentioned  also  the  finding  of  the  board,  as  to  the 
value  of  those  improvements  and  buildings? 

Ans. — It  was. 

(Objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Int.  4. — Was  not  this  estimate  of  certain  buildings,  eight  in 
number,  which  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  remove  from  the 
reserve  ? 

Ans. — It  was  supposed  to  have  included  all  belonging  to  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  and  adjacent  to'thc  stockade. 

Int.  '). — Do  you  recollect  the  date  of  this  meeting  of  this 
board,  and  the  names  of  the  members?  If  so,  please  state  these 
facts. 

Ans. — The  date  was  March  1,  18G0.  The  board  consisted 
of  myself.  Captain  Ilardie,  (then,)  and  Lieutenant  C.  Mc- 
Keever,  of  the  3d  artillery  regiment. 

Int.  n. — Were  not  these  buildings  and  improvements  ex- 
amined by  this  board  west  of  a  certain  line  of  stakes  that  com- 
menced at  a  point  about  eighty  yards  cast  of  the  Catholic 
church,  and  ran  thence  in  a  southerly  direction  to  the  river; 
and  did  not  these  improvements  and  buildings  thus  valued 
consist  of  some  four  or  five  hundred  yards  of  fence,  and  eight 
buildings  outside  of  the  stockade,  and  not  including  the  house 
occupied  by  Mrs.  Stubbs' 

(Objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Ans. — The  improvements  were  outside  the  fort  and  west  of 
the  line  of  stakes,  and  were  valued  and  estimated,  including 
the  eight  buildings  inside  and  outside  the  stockade,  which 
were  all  we  estimated,  supposed  to  belong  to  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company. 

Int.  7. — These  eight  buildings  mentioned  by  you  there,  are 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-S) 


^ 


1.0  V^m. 

^  Itt   I2J2 

u 


1.1 


£  lii   120 


6" 


FliotDgraphic 

Sdmoes 

CorporaliQn 


a  WIST  MAIN  STRHT 

WnSTIR,N.Y.  14SI0 

(7U)  :<72-4S03 


A 


,-<SV 


86 

the  buildings  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  wherever  situated, 
to  which  your  remarks  of  dilapidated  buildings,  some  of  which 
were  propped  up,  apply? 
Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

A.  J.  Smith, 

Lieut.  Col.  6th  Cavah'U,  Brevet  Major  General. 
Washington  City,  D.  C,  June  13,  1806. 


Testimony  of  Thomas  Nelson. 

Thomas  Nehon,  being  duly  sworn  according  to  law,  says : 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  place  of  residence,  and  present 
occupation? 

Ans. — Thomas  Nelson ;  I  reside  at  Peckskill,  Westchester 
county,  in  the  Stafte  of  New  York.  My  occupation  is  that  of 
a  lawyer. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  ever  resided  in  what  was  formerly  Ore- 
gon Territory;  when,  and  where,  and  what  was  your  occupa- 
tion while  there  ? 

Ans. — I  have.  I  resided  in  Oregon  Territory  from  the 
early  part  of  1851  until,  I  think,  August,  1853 ;  I  was  then 
Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  for  the 
Territory. 

Int.  3. — Have  you  ever  visited  any  of  the  posts  or  places 
in  what  was  formerly  Oregon  Territory,  which  were  claimed 
and  occupied  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company ;  if  yea,  what 
posts  have  you  visited  ? 

Ans. — I  have.  I  have  visited  Vancouver  and  Fort  George, 
or  Astoria,  and,  I  think,  I  was  at  Fort  Umpqua.  I  passed 
through  the  country ;  I  was  at  the  Cowlitz  Farms,  claimed  by 
the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company. 

Int.  4. — Was  your  attention,  while  you  resided  in  what  was 
formerly  Oregon  Territory,  called  to  the  character  and  value 
of  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  this  Territory? 
If  yea,  please  to  describe  how  it  happened  that  your  attention 
was  so  called  to  this  matter. 


87 


Ans. — It  was ;  my  attention  was  called  to  it  by  reason  of  a 
letter  I  received  from  Mr.  Webster,  Avho  was  then  Secretary 
of  State  of  the  United  States,  in  the  fall  of  185i!.  !My  atten- 
tion was  specially  called  to  it  by  that  letter  ;  but,  like  all 
inhabitants  of  that  country,  my  attention  was  called  to  it  gen- 
erally, by  reason  of  its  being  a  matter  of  public  interest  in 
the  Territory. 

Int.  5, — In  consequence  of  the  receipt  of  this  letter,  did 
you  make  any  investigation  as  to  the  character  and  value  of 
the  claim  and  possessions  of  the  Company  ?  If  yea,  please  to 
state  what  you  did  in  this  behalf,  and  the  result  thereof. 

Ans. — I  did;  I  sought  for  information  from  a  variety  of 
sources,  but  more  especially  from  Dr.  John  McLaughlin,  who 
had  been  chief  factor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  a  long- 
time resident  of  that  section  of  the  country,  and,  by  the  con- 
cession of  almost  every  one  in  that  region,  better  acquainted 
with  the  subject  than  any  other  person. 

(As  the  question  shows  that  the  result  of  an  investigation 
made  by  the  witness  is  sought  for,  and  his  answer  shows  that 
this  result  was  obtained  from  various  sources,  all  evidence 
as  to  this  result  derived  from  information  or  statements  of 
others  is  objected  to ;  and  the  result  itself  is  objected  to, 
except  so  far  as  he  may  testify  from  his  own  personal  know- 
ledge.) 

I  had  my  interviews  with  Dr.  McLaughlin  in  October,  1852, 
according  to  my  best  recollection  ;  I  had  several  of  them ; 
without  communicating  to  him  specially  the  duty  with  which 
I  Avas  charged,  I  stated  to  him  my  desire  to  obtain  accurate 
information,  in  reference  to  the  character,  extent,  and  number 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  possessions,  as  they  existed 
about  the  time  of  the  making  the  treaty  between  the  Gov- 
ernments in  1846.  I  took  notes  of  the  information  so  com- 
municated to  me  by  Dr.  McLaughlin,  and  I  have  my  original 
notes  of  such  information,  taken  by  me,  in  his  presence. 

(A.11  statements  made  by  Dr.  McLaughlin  at  these  inter- 
views objected  to,  as  incompetent  and  hearsay  testimony.) 

Int.  6. — Do  these  notes,  to  which  you  have  referred,  con- 
tain an  accurate  statement  of  the  substance  of  what  Dr.  Mc- 


88 


Laugblin  said  to  you  at  the  time  that  they  were  made  by 
you? 

Ana. — They  do. 

Int.  7. — Was  Dr.  McLaughlin  at  this  time  in  the  full  pos- 
session of  his  faculties,  and  did  Jic  or  not  appear  to  have  a 
full  knowledge  and  distinct  recollection  of  the  matters  which 
were  the  subject  of  the  communication  then  made  to  you? 

Ans. — He  was  in  full  possession  of  his  faculties  ;  he  ap- 
peared to  comprehend,  and  I  have  no  doubt  did  comprehend, 
fully  what  he  communicated  to  me. 

Int.  8. — If  you  have  these  notes  in  your  possession  now, 
will  you  please  to  produce  a  copy  of  them,  and  have  them 
made  a  part  of  your  testimony  ? 

Ans. — I  here  produce  the  original,  and  will  have  a  copy  an- 
nexed to  my  deposition,  accompanied  by  explanatory  notes 
in  parenthesis,  made  by  me  now,  and  which  are  no  part  of  the 
original  memoranda. 

Ink  9. — What  was  the  condition  and  character  of  the  lands 
and  buildings  and  other  improvements  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  at  the  post  of  Vancouver  at  the  time  you  visited 
this  post? 

Ans. — They  were  of  the  character  of  buildings  at  Vancouver, 
rough.  They  were  made,  not  out  of  sawed  lumber,  but  out  of 
timber,  in  my  judgment  cut  with  the  axe.  There  were  several 
storos,  resting  on  blocks,  unpainted,  covered  with  shingled 
roof,  according  to  my  best  recollection,  protecting  their  goods 
from  the  weather.  There  were  sc'eral  other  houses,  in  one 
of  which  Mr.  Ogden,  who  was  the  chief  factor,  resided.  They 
were  all  what  might  be  called  rude  buildings ;  no  doubt  the 
best  that  could  be  made  at  the  time  of  their  construction. 
They  were  built,  in  my  judgment,  with  reference  to  the  secu- 
rity of  what  was  placed  inside,  but  had  outlived  the  fashion 
of  the  day,  which  was  prevailing  when  I  was  there,  a  better 
class  of  buildings  being  erected  whilst  I  was  there.  The  main 
buildings  were  surrounded  by  a  stockade  made  of  fir  posts, 
with  sharpened  points,  driven  into  the  ground,  and  with  sharp- 
ened points  at  the  upper  ends,  and  left  above  the  ground  suf- 
ficiently high  to  prevent  the  inmates  from  being  surprised  by 


89 


the  Indians.     In  my  day,  in  1851  and  in  1852,  all  danger 
fi'om  an  attack  by  the  Indians  had  passed  away. 

hit.  10. — What,  in  your  judgment,  was  the  original  cost, 
and  what  the  value  of  the  buildings  and  improvements  of  this 
post,  at  the  time  that  you  saw  and  observed  them  ? 

Ans. — The  original  cost  I  know  nothing  about,  except  as 
Dr.  McLaughlin  told  me.  He  stated  it  cost  about  ^100.000 
all  told.  As  to  their  value  in  1852,  when  I  saw  them,  it  is 
difficult  for  me  to  answer.  They  had,  in  my  judgment,  out- 
lived their  day. 

Int.  11. — At  the  time  that  you  were  living  in  the  Territory 
was  there,  or  not,  considerable  fur  trade  between  the  Company 
and  the  Indians  at  Vancouver;  if  not,  what  was  the  nature  of 
the  trade  of  the  Company  at  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — As  I  understood,  there  was  but  little  fur  trade  while 
I  was  in  the  Territory.  The  principal  business  of  the  Com- 
pany Avas  merchandizing. 

Int.  12. — What,  at  the  time  you  were  in  the  Territory,  was 
the  policy  of  the  Company  in  respect  to  the  sale  of  lands, 
claimed  by  them  at  "  icouver,  to  American  citizens  and  other 
settlers ;  did  they  oifor  their  lands  for  sale,  or  did  they  with- 
draw them  from  the  market? 

Ans. — The  Company  were  not  selling  their  land  in  Oregon 
Territory.  Their  right  to  the  land  was  much  questioned ;  I 
mean  the  nature  of  their  interest  in  the  land  under  the  treaty. 
They  were  desirous  of  selling  out  all  their  rights  in  Oregon 
Territory,  in  gross. 

Int.  13. — Have  you  paid  some  attention  to  the  growth  and 
development  of  the  country  in  what  was  formerly  Oregon 
Territory ;  if  yea,  what,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  prospect  of 
building  up  a  large  commercial  town  on  the  Columbia  river, 
at  the  place  called  Vancouver? 

Ai\8. — I  ha  e  paid  some  attention.  I  think  Portland  is  to  be 
the  great  place  of  Oregon.  It  has  had  for  a  number  of  years 
the  principal  business  of  the  Territory,  and  the  reputation 
abroad  of  being  the  principal  trading  place.  In  my  judg- 
ment, with  the  advance  it  already  has,  Portland  is  destined 
to  outstrip  all  other  places  in  Oregon,  and  render  it  highly 


90 

improbable,  at  all  events,  that  a  place  so  near  to  it  as  Van- 
couver will  be  a  place  of  any  considerable  magnitude. 

Int.  14, — Have  you  any  special  knowledge  of  any  of  the 
other  posts  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  what  was  formerly 
Oregon  Territory  ?  If  yea,  please  to  describe  their  condition 
and  character,  as  particularly  as  you  can. 

Ans. — I  havn't  any  special  knowledge  of  any  ;  I  have  vis- 
ited Fort  George  a  number  of  times.  There  was  nothing  there 
but  log  buildings  and  a  little  land  enclosed. 

Cross-Examination. 


Int.  1. — Do  you,  of  your  own  knowledge,  recollect  the 
number  of  buildings  within  the  stockade  at  Vancouver,  or  is 
your  recollection  aided  by  the  notes  of  Dr.  McLaughlin's 
statements? 

Ans. — The  precise  number  I  do  not  know,  of  my  own  know- 
ledge. I  distinctly  remember  the  mess-liouse  and  two  or  three 
other  buildings,  and  a  building  in  which  the  employes  slept ; 
those  are  distinct  in  my  memory ;  and  I  am  not  able  to  speak 
of  the  others,  of  my  own  recollection.  I  remember,  also,  a 
tall  house  in  the  corner,  called  the  bastion  or  donjon,  with 
guns  mounted. 

Int.  2. — Do  you  recollect  hoAV  many  of  these  buildings  were 
framed  ? 

An8. — I  believe  there  was  a  small  brick  building,  and,  with 
this  exception,  they  were  all  frame.  The  buildings  were 
mainly  of  an  improved  style  of  log  buildings ;  some  of  them 
were  sided  up  with  plank.  I  think  the  building  occupied  by 
Governor  Ogden  was  a  nicer  building  than  the  rest. 

Int.  8. — Do  you  recollect  or  know  how  many  buildings  there 
were  outside  the  stockade,  belonging  to  the  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not ;  I  remember  two,  certainly,  one  of  which 
was  a  salmon  shed. 

Int.  4. — Are  you  confident  4;hat,  because  the  Indians  were 
quiet  in  1851  and  1852,  they  would  continue  so  after  that,  and 
all  danger  from  them  would  be  over  ? 

Ans. — I  never  supposed  that  all  danger  from  turbulence  in 


91 


the  Indi.ans  had  passed ;  but  I  supposed,  from  the  increased 
number  of  settlers  in  the  Territory,  and  the  constantly  dimin- 
ishing number  of  the  Indians,  and  the  proved  superiority  of 
the  whites  in  all  collisions,  that  all  danger  in  the  settlements 
had  passed  away.  In  other  words,  I  believed  that  for  the  pur- 
poses of  a  fort  it  was  useless. 

Int.  5. — You  say  that  you  had  many  interviews  with  Dr. 
McLaughlin  ;  did  he  not,  in  speaking  of  money,  usually  refer 
to  it  as  so  many  pounds  ? 

Ans. — I  think  he  did  occasionally,  in  speaking  of  money, 
use  the  word  pounds ;  ordinarily,  I  think  he  used  the  names 
of  our  own  currency.  He  was  in  the  habit  of  dealing  with 
persons  who  used  our  own  currency.  His  habit  was  to  reckon 
in  American  currency. 

Int.  6. — Do  you  feel  sure  that,  in  speaking  of  the  cost  of 
the  buildings,  he  did  not  speak  of  it  as  one  hundred  thousand 
pounds,  and  not  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  ? 

Ans. — I  am  as  certain  of  his  saying  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars  as  I  am  certain  of  anything  in  my  notes ;  I  read  them 
over  to  him  as  I  prepared  them. 

Int.  7. — Did  you  make  this  statement  in  answer  to  the  tenth 
interrogatory,  as  to  the  $100,000,  from  your  own  recollection 
of  the  Doctor's  statements,  or  from  the  notes  you  have  with 
you? 

Ans. — I  remember,  independent  of  my  minutes,  of  having 
heard  it  said  by  the  Doctor  that  the  expenditures  at  Fort 
Vancouver  amounted  to  $100,000. 

Int.  8. — At  what  interview,  of  the  several  you  have  spoken 
of,  and  at  what  part  of  that  interview,  was  this  statement 
made  ?     What  was  his  exact  language  ? 

Ans. — It  was  at  the  interview  that  he  had  with  me  at  my  oflSco 
in  Oregon  City,  and  in  that  part  of  the  interview  when  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Vancouver  Fort  or  trading-post  was  the  matter  of 
conversation  between  us.  The  order  in  which  these  subjects 
were  spoken  of  was  his  own,  and  not  at  my  direction,  except 
with  reference  to  what  was  said  of  the  Columbia  river.  Without 
distinctly  remembering  on  that  subject,  I  have  no  doubt  but 
that  I  was  the  first  to  introduce  that  as  a  subject  of  conversation. 


02 


M 


His  exact  language  it  is  impossible  for  me  state  any  further  than 
I  have  stated.  I  Avould  not  pretend  that  these  notes  are  in  all 
respects  in  his  exact  language,  and  yet  I  believe  them  to  be 
as  nearly  so  as  is  ordinarily  the  case  in  taking  down  state- 
ments of  a  third  party  by  a  party  who  designs  to  take  them 
accurately.  I  have  no  doubt,  and  I  remember  that  more  was 
said  than  was  here  stated. 

Int.  0. — You  have  stated  that  you  recollect  the  statement  of 
value  without  the  aid  of  notes.  Can  you  in  no  way  give  his 
words,  or  anything  more  said,  in  the  same  sentence,  with  ref- 
erence to  the  buildings  and  their  cost? 

Ans. — I  cannot,  any  further  than  I  have  already  stated. 

Int.  10. — Is  not  that  statement,  as  to  the  value,  the  sub- 
stance of  several  statements,  in  reference  to  the  buildings, 
made  several  times  in  course  of  conversation  ? 

Ans. — I  think  he  repeated  it.  I  had  several  conversations 
with  him  before  I  took  these  notes.  On  one  occasion,  I  think 
we  had  a  conversation  at  his  house,  where  we  went  over  the 
whole  of  the  ground  generally.  Knowing  the  importance  of  get- 
ting accurate  information,  and  afraid  to  trust  my  memory,  by 
reason  of  the  multiplicity  of  subjects  that  we  conversed  about, 
he,  by  my  invitation,  came  to  my  office,  when  the  subject  was 
gone  over  again,  and  these  notes  were  made  at  the  time  he  was 
making  the  communications  to  me,  I  reading  over  to  him  what 
had  been  written,  as  a  particular  branch  had  been  finished. 

Int.  11. — You  have  stated  that  you  recollect  the  statement 
as  to  value,  without  your  notes ;  is  there  anything  else  you 
distinctly  remember  he  said  as  to  Vancouver,  without  referring 
to  notes  ? 

Ans. — I  remember  also  what  he  said  in  reference  to  the  ex- 
tent of  the  claim.  I  remember  his  stating  the  cattle  roamed 
at  large  alon«5  the  shore  as  far  up  as  Cathlapootl.  This  he 
said  was  in  the  winter  season ;  that  in  the  spring  of  the  year 
the  melting  of  the  snow  upon  the  mountains  swelled  the  Co- 
lumbia river,  and  made  it  overflow  its  banks,  and  they  could 
not  pasture  there.  I  remember  his  saying  the  cattle  ran 
wild.  I  remember  his  speaking  of  a  man  by  the  name  of 
Short,  who  claimed  some  of  the  land,  to  the  possession  of 


93 


which  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  claimed  that  tlioy  were 
entitled.  I  remember  also  of  his  speaking  of  a  saw-mill, 
which  was  some  four  or  five  miles  ofl'  from  the  fort,  and  of 
its  not  doing  a  great  deal  at  that  time. 

Int.  13. — Is  what  you  have  just  stated  his  language,  or  the 
substance  of  what  he  said?  How  much  of  it,  if  any,  is  in  the 
notes  you  have  mentioned  ? 

Ans. — That  will  bo  best  seen  by  referring  to  the  notes.  It 
is  impossible  for  me  to  say  that  I  used  the  exact  language  used 
by  Dr.  McLaughlin.  I  pretend  only  to  state  the  substance, 
though  I  have  no  doubt,  in  many  instances,  I  used  the  very 
words  that  he  used. 

Int.  14. — You  have  placed  in  parenthesis,  several  times, 
words  in  reference  to  the  various  subjects  in  -your  notes. 
Was  there  not  a  good  deal  of  conversation  in  reference  to 
these  various  topics  which  you  have  not  recorded,  which  pre- 
ceded and  followed  what  you  have  put  down  ? 

Ans. — There  was. 

Int.  14. — Was  not  the  Doctor  a  garrulous  man,  full  of  anec- 
dote, mingling  together  his  own  personal  knoAvlcdge,  and  what 
he  had  learned  from  others,  so  that  it  was  difficult  to  distin- 
guish the  actual  source  of  the  information  which  he  gave? 

Ans. — He  was  a  talkative  man.  I  think  he  was  not  a  man 
of  anecdote.  His  nature  was  rather  grave  than  anecdotical. 
He  was  full  of  detail  and  incident.  It  was  not  difficult  to 
distinguish  the  source  of  information  which  he  gave  when  he 
pretended  to  state  what  his  source  was.  My  application  v^as 
for  his  knowledge  on  the  subject.  How  that  knowledge  was 
derived  by  him  was  not  a  matter  of  particular  inquiry  by  me. 
I  presumed  that  he  had  full  knowledge  of  the  subjects  on 
which  he  spoke.  He  had  for  many  years  been  chief  factor 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  for  more  than  twenty 
years,  as  I  understood,  from  him  and  from  conversations  that 
I  had  at  the  fort  with  its  officers.  It  was  matter  of  historv 
that  Mr.  Ogden  had  had  more  of  personal  adventure  in  the 
mountains  with  the  Indians  than  Dr.  McLaughlin  or  any  other 
officer  of  the  Company.     The  Doctor  was  regarded  as  a  care- 


94 


ful,  pains-taking  officer,  and  fully  acquainted  and  familiar 
with  all  the  details  of  his  official  duties. 

Int.  15. — Did  he,  in  his  conversation,  state  what  portion  of 
the  information  ho  gave  you  was  derived  from  his  own  per- 
sonal knowledge,  and  what  from  other  persons  ? 

Ans. — He  did  not  undertake  to  discriminate  in  that  respect. 

Int.  10. — Can  you  tell  now  what  portion  of  the  information 
he  gave  you  was  from  his  own  knowledge  and  what  from  the 
information  of  others? 

Ans. — I  cannot.  That  was  not  made  a  matter  of  special 
inquiry  hy  me,  for  I  presumed  he  was  fully  informed  on  the 
subject. 

Int.  17. — Can  you  give  from  memory  that  portion  of  the 
conversation  you  have  spoken  of,  in  answer  to  13th  interroga- 
tory, which  took  place  before  or  after  you  recorded  any  of  it, 
in  the  language  of  the  Doctor? 

Ans. — I  can  stat^somepartof  the  conversation  that  occurred 
in  that  interview;  but  I  cannot  state  the  part  that  took  place 
before  the  record  was  made,  or  after  it  was  made,  so  as  to  be 
able  to  say  at  what  period  it  did  take  place,  with  reference  to 
the  time  of  the  record  made  by  me.  I  am  not  able  to  say  that 
I  can  state  any  of  the  conversation  in  the  precise  language 
made  use  of  by  the  parties. 

Int.  18. — Did  you  put  questions  to  the  Doctor  in  that  inter- 
view; if  so,  can  you  now,  from  memory,  tell  what  distinct 
portion  of  your  record  is  the  result  of  answers  to  your  ques- 
tions, and  what  was  given  by  the  Doctor  without  questioning? 

Ans. — I  did  put  questions  to  the  Doctor.  I  am  not  able  to 
select  those  portions  of  my  minutes  which  were  given  in  an- 
swer to  questions  put  by  me.  I  stated  generally,  at  the  com- 
mencement of  my  conversation  with  the  Doctor  on  the  subject, 
my  object  in  getting  information  with  reference  to  the  num- 
ber, character,  and  condition  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's 
claims  in  Oregon,  and  after  that  preliminary  statement  we 
took  up  the  matters  seriatim. 

Int.  19. — In  thus  taking  up  these  matters  seriatim  was  there 
not  a  continual  interchange  of  questions  and  answers  between 


05 


8  own  pcr- 


the  Doctor  and  yourself,  in  which  the  meaning  was  often  con- 
vcycil  in  part  by  the  question  and  in  part  by  the  answer? 

Arm. — I  have  no  accurate  recollection  on  that  subject;  but 
I  have  no  doubt  that  in  many  instances  the  question  and 
answer  W(  ild  have  to  be  taken  together,  in  order  to  get  at  the 
meaning  convoyed. 

Int.  20. — Have  you  now  any  distinct  recollection  of  the 
questions  put  by  you  to  the  Doctor,  other  than  a  general  recol- 
lection that  they  Avere  proper  to  the  subject-matter  your  were 
inquiring  into? 

Aim. — I  have  not. 

Int.  21. — With  reference  to  their  buildings,  do  you  know  how 
many  of  them  were  built  before  184G;  how  many  after  ;  how 
many  were  nearly  new,  and  how  long  a  time  had  been  occu- 
pied in  building  them? 

Arts. — From  my  own  knowledge,  I  do  not.  Judging  from 
their  a])pcarance,  and  from  Avhat  I  learned  at  the  fort,  they 
were  all  built  before  lS4(j. 

Int.  22. — In  these  remarks  of  Dr.  INIcLaugiilin,  did  he  give 
you  this  information  ;  or  did  he  state  how  many  buildings  were 
put  up  at  first,  how  many  had   been  added  in  course  of  time  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  that  he  particularized  the  time  of 
the  erection  of  these  several  buildings. 

Int.  23. — Was  Dr.  McLaughlin  at  that  time,  and  during  your 
residence,  doing  business  for  himself,  in  Oregon  City,  on  his 
own  account? 

Ans. — He  was.     He  had  a  mill  at  Oregon  City. 

Int.  24. — Can  you  give  the  year,  and  at  what  time  of  the 
year,  this  conversation  took  place  ? 

Ans. — In  the  year  1852,  and  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fall  of 
that  year. 

Int.  25. — Do  you  know  anything  about  Dr.  McLaughlin 
being  an  applicant,  about  this  time,  for  confirmation,  by  act  of 
Congress,  for  a  donation  claim  ? 

Ans. — I  know  that,  at  this  time,  the  Oregon  City  claim,  as 
it  was  called,  and  which  he  had  taken,  had  been  disposed  of  by 
the  donation  law  to  the  Territory  for  university  purposes.  But 
Dr.  McLaughlii^  felt  very  much  aggrieved  at  the  taking  away 


96 

of  what  lie  called  his  claim ;  and  that  ho  was  desirous  of  ro- 
obtaiiiing  it  in  any  way  that  ho  could ;  that  he  talked  of  appeal- 
ing to  the  sense  of  justice  of  the  Territory  legislature;  that 
ho  talked  of  petitioning  Congress  on  the  subject ;  and  tliat  ho 
also  talked  of  claiming  tlio  same  under  the  treaty  of  1846  as 
a  British  subject.  lie  was  much  disturbed  upon  the  question, 
and  made  many  and  grievous  r  jmplaints  about  it,  and  com- 
plained a  great  deal  of  the  ingratitude  which  had  been  shown 
to  him. 

Examination-in- CJiief  liesumed. 


Int.  1. — Do  you  know  from  anything  the  Doctor  said,  or 
otherwise,  whether  or  not  he  retained  any  interest  of  the  Com- 
pany after  his  resignation  as  chief  factor ;  and  at  or  about  the 
time  of  your  interview  with  him ;  and  whether  or  [not]  he 
continued,  after  his  resignation,  to  be  consulted  concerning 
the  affairs  of  the  Company,  to  be  advised  concerning  their 
condition  ? 

Ans. — I  understood  from  the  Doctor,  and  at  the  fort,  that 
he  was  in.orested  in  the  affairs  of  the  Company  afte»  he  ceased 
to  be  chief  factor.  I  learned  this  whilst  in  Oregon,  in  1851 
or  1852,  and  perhaps  in  both  years. 

(Objected  to  as  hearsay.) 

And  I  also  learned  after  he  ceased  to  be  chief  factor  he  was 
occasionally  consulted. 

(Also  objected  to  as  hearsay.) 

Int.  2. — Did  not  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  whilejou  were 
in  the  Territory,  hare  free  access  to  the  courts,  or  was  there 
or  not,  in  your  opinion,  any  obstacle  in  the  way  of  their 
obtaining  justice  in  the  courts  of  the  Territory  in  any  case 
involving  the  question  of  claims  and  right  to  land  or  other 
property  in  the  Territory? 

Ans. — The  courts  of  the  Territory,  whilst  I  was  there,  were 
freely  accessible  to  all  persons.  I  know  of  no  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  their  obtaining  justice  in  any  manner  which  they 
thought  proper  to  make,  subject  to  legal  investigation  in  the 
courts.     Certainly  the  relations  of  the  officers  of  that  Com- 


97 

pany  with  the  judges  wore  of  an  agreeable  and  I  think  friendly 
character.  In  my  day  I  think  that  jurors  were  about  as  fair 
as  arc  to  be  found  in  any  country,  and  especially  deferential 
to  the  instructions  of  the  court.  There  were  some  persons  in 
the  Territory  of  narrow  and  ignorant  character  who  were  dis- 
posed to  rail  at  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  all  other  per- 
sons occupying  prominent  positions  or  who  had  secured  wealth. 
But  with  the  majority  of  persons  not  personally  interested  in 
the  matter,  I  think  the  jurors  of  the  Territory  were  disposed 
to  render  as  fair  verdicts  as  the  jurors  of  any  country. 

Crotss-Uxamination  Resumed. 

Int.  1. — Do  you  think  a  jury  of  the  county  in  whit  b  their 
claim  lay,  composed  chiefly  of  settlers  on  that  claim,  would 
have  been  [?able]  to  have  agreed  upon  a  verdi^^,  n  favor  of 
the  Company  in  a  suit  against  an  American  citizen  foi  tres- 
passing on  tlicii  land?  Have  you  any  acquaintance  wiili  the 
citizeri  -  of  Clarke  county  in  Oregon,  or  did  you  ever  hold  a 
court  in  that  county  at  Vancouver? 

AuB. — I  do  not  think  that  jurors  interested  in  the  question 
against  the  Company  would  be  any  more  likely  to  do  the  Com- 
pany justice  there  than  interested  jurors  would  do  justice  any- 
where. I  by  no  means  supposed  that  all  the  persons  in  Clarke 
county  were  interested  in  the  question  against  the  Company. 
If  they,  the  courts,  were  possessed  of  ample  powers  in  refer- 
ence to  changing  the  venue  so  as  to  cause  tl\e  stream  of  jus- 
tice to  flow  free  from  prejudice,  passion,  or  interest.  • 

Thomas  Nelson. 

Washington  City,  D.  C,  June  21,  1866. 


jre,  were 


It  is  hereby  agreed  between  the  parties  that  the  part  of  the 
minutes  (hereunto  annexed)  of  the  conversation  held  between 
the  deponent  and  Dr.  McLaughlin,  relating;  to  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company,  shall  be  offered  m  the  case  of  the 
Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  subject  to  th^'  same  ob- 


98 

jections  that  were  taken  to  the  said  minutes  in  the  deposition 
concerning  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 


Note, — In  reference  to  the  value  of  the  navigation  of  North 
Branch  of  Columbia. 

In  the  summer,  river  full  of  rapids;  communication  in  the 
spring  and  fall ;  can't  communicate  i>i  the  summer,  owing  to 
the  melting  of  the  snows;  country  north  has  not  been  ex- 
plored ;  there  are  no  trading  posts  north  of  the  49th° ;  where 
they  use  the  Columbia  or  Frazer's  river,  there  are,  or  were, 
seven  posts;  they  used  to  go  to  Okanagan,  then  strike  across 
the  country  to  Thompson  river,  then  across  land  to  Alexandria, 
in  Caledonia,  on  Frazer's  river;  they  used  the  Columbia  in 
Cooing  across  the  country  to  Red  river  and  Canada ;  it  is  best 
thoroughfare  with  Red  river,  but  another  could  be  made;  it 
is  of  a  strong,  smooth  current;  it  is  navigable  for  steamboats 
in  spring  and  fall,  but  there  is  no  country  to  cultivate. 

In  reference  to  forts  and  trading  posts  claimed  [by]  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company: 

In  1846,  Kootenay  post., — South  of  Columbia,  between 
that  and  Flat-Heads;  a  winter  post;  on  the  Kootanay  lake ; 
a  mere  winter  trading  post;  no  farms,  no  cattle. 

Flat-Heads. — South  and  cast  of  the  last;  a  trading  post, 
called  Flat-Heads;  used  only  in  the  winter  to  trade  with  In- 
dians; the  Flat-Heads  used  to  be  met  there  twice  a  year  for 
trading,  after  buffalo  hunts;  mere  log  building. 

Fort  Colvilc. — Was  the  headquarters  of  the  former  posts; 
in  1840  there  was  a  farm ;  used  to  raise  from  1,000  to  1,500 
bushels  of  wheat;  there  was  a  small  mill  forty  feet  square; 
large  amount  of  cattle ;  two  or  three  hundred  head  of  cattle 
in  1846;  they  were  looked  after  by  the  people  of  the  fort. 

Okanagan. — On  the  Columbia;  a  small  post;  a  receptacle 
for  the  boats  used  in  transporting  goods  to  Frazer's  river  set- 
tlements and  posts;  soil  around,  barren;  a  small  garden; 
cattle,  new,  sent  there  in  1826,  for  the  use  of  the  place. 

Walla-Walla. — Poor  soil  around ;  a  mere  fort ;  cost  a  good 


99 


deal,  but  made  strong  as  against  Indian  attacks ;  no  farms 
there;  a  small  garden  for  the  use  of  the  place;  no  trade  in 
furs;  object  was  to  subdue  Indians;  to  supply  their  wants, 
and  bring  them  in  subjection ;  it  was  put  there  to  subdue  the 
Indians,  and  with  a  view  of  making  Indians  defend  it;  In. 
dians  were  gratified  at  the  having  of  posts  in  their  lands. 

Boise. — No  farms  there;  in  the  Snake  country;  a  trading 
post  for  Indians;  post  established  to  keep  Indians  in  order; 
two  men  stationed  there. 

Fort  Hall. — built  by  Wyeth,  an  American,  now  in  Boston; 
in  1834,  in  the  Snake  country  ;  object  to  supply  the  trappers; 
a,ttempted  the  salmon  trade;  failed;  many  American  trappers 
in  the  country;  Hudson's  Bay  Company  bought  of  Wyeth; 
no  farms  made  then  by  Hudson's  Bay  Company ;  three  or 
four  cows  sent  there  in  1835  or  1836  by  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  to  Indians ;  land  all 
barren  around. 

Vancouver. — 1,000  to  1,500  acres  used  by  the  plough  at  a 
period  prior  to  184G.  There  had  been  that  amount  under  fence. 
Saw-mill  and  grist-mill,  about  five  miles  east  up  the  river; 
had  from  two  to  three  thousand  head  of  cattle  ;  permitted  to 
stray  where  they  could  find  pasture ;  cattle  are  now  wild ; 
five  stores  of  100  feet;  granary  60  by  40;  mess-house,  office, 
$100,000  expended. 

On  the]  Columbia  from  Cathlapootl  up  to  the  river  Duthfe, 
(sometimes  called  Vivet,)  say  about  twenty  miles,  all  over- 
flows ;  cattle  used  to  be  there  in  winter,  and  then  were  driven 
back  ;  sometimes  were  driven  back  half  a  mile,  and  then  again 
five  or  six  miles ;  cattle  were  permitted  to  pasture ;  only 
occupied  and  tilled  at  and  near  Vancouver ;  the  rest  was  for 
pasture. 

Sophie's  Island  [Sauvie's.] — Was  selected  by  Wyeth  first ;  ho 
built  upon  it  and  requested  McLaughlin  to  keep  it ;  buildings 
fell  down;  McLiMighlin  afterwards  recorded  it  in  Wyeth's 
name.  Hudson's  Bay  never  claimed  it  in  McLaughlin's  day. 
He  left  it  in  1846.  There  were  two  buildings  put  up  by 
Company  for  Wyeth. 

Fort  George. — A  store;  a  salmon  shed;  and  oflScer's  dwel- 


100 


ling.  Astor  was  bought  out.  Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  a 
post  there  in  184G;  no  farms;  nothing  but  garden;  about 
eleven  acres  cleared;  was  once  of  the  principal  fort;  aban- 
doned in  1825.  For  a  time  afterwards  a  small  trading  post 
for  Indians,  and  to  prevent  the  Indians  from  coming  to  Van- 
couver and  engaging  in  hostilities  with  Indians  there.  In  1847 
or  1848  moved  it  over  to  Cape  Disappointment ;  before  that 
time  no  post  at  Cape  Disappointment.  After  that,  Ogden 
took  a  claim  which  he  bought  of  one  Wheeler,  an  American. 
Trade  was  then  changed  from  Fort  George  and  went  to  Dis- 
appointment. 

Fort  Umpqua. — Post  established  in  1834 ;  agriculture  en- 
gaged in  in  a  limited  degree  for  the  use  of  the  post,  and  some 
cattle,  pigs,  and  breeding  mares  sent  there.  Cattle,  in  fact, 
were  sent  to  all  the  forts  for  the  convenience  of  the  forts,  and 
to  civilize  the  Indians;  was  a  picket  fort  in  1846. 

Note,  as  to  claims  of  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany: 

Puget's  Sound;  began  in  1837  for  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 
In  1840  transferred  to  Puget's  Sound  Company.  At  Cowlitz 
farms  had  about  2,000  (acres)  under  cultivation.  There  werg 
lines  designated  around  this  farm,  and  fenced  in  some  1,500 
acres;  pasture  was  outside;  three  or  four  hundred  head  of 
cattle ;  outside  of  the  limits  was  common  for  feeding  cattle. 
Considered  the  Cowlitz  Farms  to  embrace  about  3,000  acres 
of  land. 

Nisqually. — About  eight  or  nine  miles  of  plain.  The  cattle 
and  sheep  pastured  over  three  or  four  miles  square.  Some- 
times cattle  strayed  over  eight  or  ten  miles.  Plain  was 
bounded  on  one  side  by  the  Sound,  on  the  other  side  by  the 
Nisqually  river,  and  the  woods  on  the  other  side. 


101 


Testimony  of  Major  General  C.  C.  Augur. 


Major  General  C.  C  Augur,  being  duly  sworn  according  to 
law,  says: 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  place  of  residence,  and  present 
occupation  ? 

Ans. — Christopher  C.  Augur,  Major  General  of  Volunteers 
in  the  service  of  the  United  States,  at  present  commanding 
the  Department  of  Washington. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  ever  resided  in  Washington  Territory ;  if 
yea,  when  and  where,  and  for  how  long  a  period? 

Ana. — I  hiive,  from  some  time  in  November,  1852,  to  March, 
1856,  with  an  occasional  absence.  I  was  absent  at  onetime  four 
months.  I  resided  at  Fort  Vancouver.  I  was  stationed  there, 
and  I  was  there  two  or  three  times  a  year  after  that  until  1861. 

Int.  3. — Aj'e  you  acquainted  with  the  fort  and  buildings 
at  Vancouver  which  were  claimed  and  occupied  by  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company? 

Ans. — I  am  generally. 

Int.  4. — Did  you  ever  make  an  estimate  of  the  value  of  the 
fort  and  buildings  and  improvements  at  this  post  which  was 
claimed  and  occupied  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company;  if  yea, 
where,  and  under  what  circumstances? 

Ans. — I  did.  I  was  a  member  of  a  board  of  survey,  which 
was  ordered  to  make  such  estimate.  It  was  in  the  fall  of  1853 
or  spring  of  1854;  I  don't  remember  which. 

Int.  5. — Did  this  board  of  survey  make  a  report  in  writing 
of  their  action  in  the  premises? 

Ans. — It  did. 

Int.  6. — Please  to  look  at  the  paper  here  produced,  (marked 
A,  and  hereto  annexed,)  and  state  whether  it  be,  in  your 
opinion,  a  true  copy  of  the  report  which  was  made  by  the  board. 

Ans. — I  believe  it  is  a  correct  copy  of  the  report. 

Int.  7. — Are  the  other  members  of  the  board  who  acted  with 
you  in  this  matter  now  living? 

Ana. — They  are  not. 

(The  introduction  of  this  report  and  ail  matters  connected 


102 


with  it  objected  to,  as  being  the  proceedings  and  decision  of  a 
military  board  or  tribunal  on  matters  that  have  been  or  may 
be  in  question  before  this  commission,  and  because  the  same 
was  ex  imrte,  it  not  appearing  that  notice  was  given  to  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company.) 

Int.  8. — Please  to  look  at  the  map  here  produced,  drawn  by 
Giddings,  representing  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
and  say  whether  you  recognize  it  as  a  just  delineation  of  the 
country,  including  and  adjoining  Vancouver,  on  the  north  side 
of  the  Columbia  river. 

Ans. — So  far  as  this  shows  the  topography  of  the  country, 
I  recognize  it. 

Int.  9. — Were  you  acquainted  with  the  general  condition  of 
the  country  described  on  this  map,  as  claimed  by  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company? 

Ans. — I  was  not.  I  was  acquainted  with  only  that  part 
that  was  iaiuiediatcly  about  Vancouver. 

Int.  10. — What  was  the  condition  of  that  part  of  the  country 
adjoining  Vancouver  with  which  you  were  acquainted?  How 
much  of  it,  if  any,  was  enclosed  and  cultivated  by  the  Hudson's  . 
Bay  Company;  how  much,  if  any,  was  in  a  wild,  natural  state, 
and  used  in  common  by  all  persons  there  for  the  purposes  of 
pasturage  or  culture? 

Ans. — I  knew  the  country  for  about  six  miles  on  the  river, 
commencing  two  miles  below  the  military  reservation,  and 
varying  from  a  mile  to  four  miles  in  the  interior.  A  portion 
bordering  on  the  river,  averaging  three  quarters  of  a  mile, 
perhaps  more,  in  that  vicinity  was  an  open  country,  and 
mostly  cultivated  by  settlers  and  mostly  enclosed.  The  por- 
tion  on  the  military  reservation  I  should  say  was  very  nearly 
one  half,  recognized  as  the  Hudson's  Bay  enclosures,  and  so 
far  as  I  know  was  cultivated  by  their  employes.  The  balance 
of  it  was  mostly  heavy  fir  timber.  There  were  two  or  three 
small  plains,  called  the  second,  third,  and  fourth  plains,  that 
were  open;  I  couldn't  judge  the  amount  of  land  in  them;  per- 
haps there  were  one  thousand  acres. 


103 


Cross-Examination. 

Int.  1. — You  stated,  I  believe,  that  you  could  not  be  very 
accurate  about  the  laud  around  Vancouver;  do  you  feel  sure 
that  this  strip  of  open  land  was  not  wider  than  you  have  de- 
scribed ? 

Ans. — The  average  width,  in  my  judgment,  was  three  quar- 
ters of  a  mile  in  that  vicinity,  perhaps  more. 

C.    C.    AUGtIR, 

Major  General  of  Volunteers. 
Wasiiincton  City,  D.  C,  June  2,  1806. 


Copy  A.— 3. 


Proceedings  of  a  Board  of  Officers  assembled  at  Fort  Vancouver^ 
\V.  T.^  by  virtue  of  the  following  order: 

Headquarters,  Fort  Vancouver,  W.  T., 

January  17,  1854. 
Orders  No.  1. 

In  order  to  carry  out  instructions  received  from  the  War 
Department,  dated  October  29,  1853,  and  from  the  Headquar- 
ters Department  of  the  Pacific,  dated  December  7,  1853,  Sur- 
geon B.  M.  Byrne,  Captain  T.  L.  Brent,  A.  Q.  M.,  and  Cap- 
tain C.  C.  Augur,  4th  Infantry,  will  constitute  a  Board  to 
assemble  at  this  post  at  10  o'clock  A.  M.  to-day,  to  examine 
and  report  upon  the  extent,  condition,  and  probable  value  of 
all  improvements  contained  within  the  limits  of  the  present 
militai^  reservation  at  this  post  of  six  hundred  and  forty  acres. 
By  order  of  Lieut.  Col.  Bonneville. 

(Signed)  John  Withers, 

2(i  Lieut.  4tth  Infantry,  Act.  Adjutant. 

Fort  Vancouver,  W.  T.,  January  17,  1854. 
The  board  met  pursuant  to  the  above  order.  Every  member 
of  the  board  was  present.     To  enable  the  members  to  possess 


104 

themselves  of  the  necessary  facts  and  information  for  giving 
an  intelligent  opinion  upon  the  different  points  contemplated 
by  the  order,  the  board  adjourned  to  Monday  the  23d  instant. 

Fort  Vancouver,  W.  T.,  January  23,  1854. 
The  board  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  all  the  members 
being  present.     The  board  determined  as  follows,  respecting 
the  extent,  condition,  and  probable  value  of  the  improvements 
upon  the  reserve. 

1st. — Extent  of  Improvements. 

The  board  find  that  the  military  reservation,  as  designated 
by  the  commanding  officer,  is  a  portion  of  the  land  claimed 
by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  that  it  includes  their  entire 
establishment  at  this  place,  and  that,  with  the  exception  of 
those  belonging  to  the  United  States,  they  claim  all  the  build- 
ings upon  it  as  their  property,  and  also  all  the  improvements 
of  whatever  character. 

The  board  find  that  about  one-half  of  this  reservation  has 
been  under  cultivation  at  various  times,  and  that  upon  this 
portion  of  it  there  are  about  three  miles  of  fence,  about  eighty 
fruit  trees,  about  eight  acres  of  wheat  in  the  ground,  and  thir- 
teen small  houses,  some  of  them  being  rented  at  from  $8  to 
$20  per  month,  one  large  building  rented  by  the  United  States 
as  a  hospital  at  $40  per  month,  and  one  large  store-house  upon 
the  river,  and  the  Catholic  Church  and  parsonage  attached. 
Besides  these,  there  is  their  trading  establishment,  surrounded 
by  heavy  pickets,  consisting  of  store-houses,  shops,  offices,  &c., 
and  the  dwelling  houses  of  the  officers  of  the  Company. 

2d. — Condition  of  Improvements. 


The  board,  find  with  few  exceptions,  all  the  above  buildings, 
fences,  pickets,  &c.,  are  what  would  be  termed  old,  but  it  can- 
not arrive  at  the  exact  age  of  any  of  them.  There  are  besides 
some  shells  of  houses  and  portions  of  decayed  fences,  which 
they  have  not  thought  worth  considering  at  all. 


105 


3cl. — Probable  Value  of  Improvements. 


The  board  estimates  the  value  of  the  above  improvements  to 
be  as  follows,  guiding  themselves  in  their  valuation  of  buildings 
by  what  many  of  them  are  rented  for,  and  for  fences  by  the 
current  rates  for  such  improvements: 


For 

a 
a 
a 
(( 
(( 
<( 
a 
a 
a 

a 
(( 
a 

(( 
<< 
a 
a 
a 
it 
a 
a 
« 
a 
a 


pickets  around  trading  establishments 

thirteen  houses  outside  of  pickets       -         -         . 

hospital  buildings 

four  old  sheds 

Catholic  Church 

parsonage  attached 

court  house 

three  stables 

store-house  on  river  ------ 

four  large  store-houses  inside  of  pickets  ($2,500 
each)    -         -----_. 

one  dwelling-house  "  (Governor's) 

one  dwelling-house  "  (Graham's) 

three  houses  (officers'  and  inside  the  pickets) 

($1,000  each) 

one  granary       ---.... 

blacksmith  shop  inside  pickets       -         -         -         . 
one  bake-house    ------- 

magazine    -----.-. 

washing-house      -----.. 

one  kitchen.  Governor's  house     -         -        -        . 
one  butcher's  shop       ----.. 

three  wells,  at  $250  each  -  .  -  .  , 
eighty  fruit  trees,  at  $20  each  -  -  .  . 
eight  acres  of  wheat  in  the  ground,  at  $15  per  acre, 
three  miles  of  fence,  at  $300  per  mile 


$3,000 
5,200 
1,333 
100 
2,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 

10,000 
4,000 
4,000 

3,000 

3,000 
500 

1,500 
500 
500 

1,000 
500 
750 

1,600 
120 
900 


Total  probable  value 


-  $47,503 


In  estimating  the  above  to  be  the  probable  value  of  the 


106 

property  and  improvements  upon  the  reserve  claimed  by  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  the  board  have  proceeded  as  though 
they  were  claimed  by  private  individuals,  and  have  not  deemed 
it  their  province  to  inquire  whether  they  have  an  adventitious 
value,  as  being  an  integral  portion  of  the  Hudson's  Lay  Com- 
pany's establishments  in  this  country,  under  the  peculiar 
privileges  and  rights  claimed  by  that  Company. 

There  being  no  further  business  before  it,  the  board  ad- 
journed sine  die. 

(Signed;)  B.  M.  Byrne, 

Surgeon  U.  S.  Army. 
(Signed,)  T.  L.  Buknt, 

A.  Q.  M.  U.  S.  Army. 
(Signed,)  C.  C.  Augur, 

Captain  'ith  Infantry. 

In  approving  the  proceedings  of  the  board  of  officers,  I  do 
not  wish  it  to  be  understood  that  the  buildings  will  answer  for 
the  military  service.  They  can  stand  a  short  period  only 
when  they  cease  to  receive  the  great  care  bestowed  upon  them. 
The  buildings  now  occupied  as  hospital  and  store-house  will 
answer  as  they  now  do  until  others  be  erected  more  conveni- 
ently located. 

(Signed,)  B.  L.  E.  Bonneville, 

Lieut.  Col.  4th  Infantry,  commanding. 
Official : 

Benj.  C.  Card. 
Col.  Q.  M.  Bept.,  Bvt.  Brig.  Grenl. 
Quartermaster  General's  Office,  May  10,  1866. 


Testimony  of  James  A.  Hardie. 


James  A.  Hardie,  being  duly  sworn  according  to  law,  says: 
Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  place  of  residence,  and  occu- 
pation? 
Am. — I  am  inspector  general  and  brevet  major  general  in 


107 


Territory ; 


the  army  of  the  United  States.     My  habitual  station  is  Wash- 
ington.    JMy  name  is  James  A.  Ilardie. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  ever   resided  in  Washington 
if  yea,  when  and  where,  and  for  how  long  a  period? 

Ana. — I  Avas  an  officer. stationed  at  Vancouver  and  the  Cas- 
cades from  1858  to  1861. 

Int.  3. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  post  at  Vancouver 
which  was  formerly  claimed  and  occupied  by  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company?  If  yea,  please  to  describe  the  same,  giving 
the  character  of  the  construction  of  the  fort  and  buildings 
connected  therewith,  and  their  condition  and  value,  as  par- 
ticularly as  you  can. 

An8.-^\  find  here  a  certified  copy  of  a  report  of  a  board  of 
survey  of  which  I  was  a  member,  to  which  I  niiglit  refer  in 
answer  to  this  question.  There  were  some  eight  or  ten  build- 
ings within  an  old  stockade.  The  buildings  had  been  used  for 
ware-houses  and  officers'  quarters,  and  outbuildings  belonging 
to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  These  buildings  were  of  log, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Governor's  house  and  a  building 
which,  I  think,  had  been  used  as  chaplain's  quarters.  When 
I  say  eight  or  ten  buildings,  I  mean  the  principal  construc- 
tions. There  were  sheds  or  huts,  and  perhaps  one  or  two  other 
unimportant  buildings.  Also,  upon  the  reserve  was  a  build- 
ing used  as  a  residence,  opposite  the  quarters  of  Captain 
Ingalls,  Quartermaster,  the  extreme  end  of  the  property  occu- 
pied by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  The  log  buildings  (the 
store-houses)  in  1860,  the  occasion  of  the  survey,  were  in  a 
state  of  great  dilapidation,  not  worth  repair,  and  having  no 
value  except  as  so  much  hewn  seasoned  timber,  where  sound 
pieces  could  be  selected  ;  but  very  much  of  the  timber,  espe- 
cially the  larger  pieces,  was  decayed.  The  frame  buildings 
were  in  not  much  better  condition.  The  whole  property  had 
been  deteriorating  from  the  time  I  saw  it,  in  1858,  until  the 
time  of  the  survey,  in  1860. 

Int.  4. — You  speak  of  a  report  which  was  made  by  you  and 
others;  please  to  look  at  this  paper  here  produced,  and  say 
whether  it  be,  in  your  opinion,  a  true  copy  of  the  report  to 
which  you  allude  in  your  last  answer. 


108 


Ans. — It  is,  in  my  opinion,  a  true  copy  of  the  report. 

(The  introduction  of  this  report,  and  all  matters  connected 
with  it,  objected  to,  as  being  the  proceeding  aiid  decision  of  a 
military  tribunal  on  matters  which  have  been,  or  may  be,  at 
issue  before  this  commission,  and  further,  because  it  does  not 
appear  that  any  notice  of  such  proceedings  was  given  to  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company.) 

Int.  5. — Have  vou  any  knowledge  of  the  character  and 
condition  of  the  land  at  or  near  Vancouver?  If  yea,  please 
to  describe  it,  giving,  as  particularly  as  you  can,  the  quantity 
which  was  cultivated,  if  any,  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
and  general  character  of  the  country  adjoining,  whether  or 
not  it  was,  for  the  most  part,  covered  with  woods,  or  for  the 
most  part  cultivated,  or  in  a  wild  state,  and  open  to  any  one 
who  had  occasion  to  use  it. 

(The  latter  part  of  the  question  objected  to,  because  the 
same  is  leading,  and  suggesting  to  the  witness  an  answer  to 
the  question.) 

An8. — I  was  necessarily  somewhat  acquainted  with  the  land 
in  and  about  Vancouver.  The  portion  of  the  military  Reserve 
on  which  were  the  fort  and  buildings  of  the  Company  was  a 
flat  plain  of  good  land,  and  fit  for  cultivation.  Back  of  that 
was  an  elevated  plateau  of  inferior  land,  mostly  covered  for 
miles  with  timber.  I  have  an  indistinct  recollection  of  fields 
cultivated  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  or  by  persons  in 
their  employ.  The  maximum  amount  of  land  under  cultiva- 
tion by  them  could  be  obtained  by  judging  from  the  amount 
of  fencing  found  upon  the  land  in  their  occupancy,  and  that 
was,  I  think,  somewhere  between  seven  and  nine  hundred  yards 
of  fence.  Latterly,  that  is  in  1860,  the  place  was  all  open; 
any  one  could  come  or  go  through  the  fort  or  grounds  at 
pleasure,  and  the  only  fields,  I  think,  enclosed,  were  those  the 
garrison  used  for  company  gardens. 

Lit.  6. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  value  of  the  land 
at  and  near  Vancouver  while  you  were  there?  If  yea,  please 
to  state  what,  in  your  judgment,  was  the  value  of  the  same. 

Ans. — I  consider  the  United  States  military  reservation  to  be 
the  most  valuable  land  in  that  region,  excepting,  of  course,  the 


109 

town  site  of  Vancouver.  To  the  military  reservation  especial 
value  would  attach  from  the  beauty  of  its  site  for  handsome 
residences.  I  should  think  the  flat,  alluvial  land  outside  this 
reservation  ought  to  have  been  worth  one  hundred  dollars  per 
acre.  Upon  the  plateau  behind  it  I  should  have  hositated  to 
have  given  ten  dollars  per  acre  for  any  farming  purposes.  For 
purposes  of  timber  it  would  have  value  according  to  the  qual- 
ity of  timber  and  its  accessibility  to  the  river.  I  do  not,  how- 
ever, consider  myself  perfectly  well  acquainted  with  the  market 
value  of  real  estate  in  1858,  1859,  and  18G0,  in  Washington 
Territory,  although  I  could  not  escape  knowledge  of  the  fact 
that  the  town  of  Vancouver,  the  more  valuable  portion  of  this 
section,  was  improving  but  slowly,  and  had  failed  to  realize 
the  expectation,  as  to  its  growth  and  prosperity,  of  its  friends. 

Int.  7. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  condition  of  the 
town  of  Vancouver  ?  If  yea,  how  [was]  its  condition,  in 
respect  to  growth  and  prosperity,  when  you  last  had  any 
knowledge  of  it,  compared  with  its  condition  when  you  first 
heard  it. 

Am. — It  had  improved  slightly,  but  its  growth  was  slug- 
gish. 

Cross-Examination. 


Int.  1. — How  long  were  you  at  Vancouver,  and  at  what 
time? 

Ans. — I  was  at  Vancouver  all  of  the  interval  between  1858 
and  1861,  except  some  six  or  seven  months  spent  at  the  Cas- 
cades. 

Int.  2. — Was  your  examination  of  these  buildings  made  at 
the  time  of  the  survey  you  have  spoken  of? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  3. — Was  not  that  survey  made  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining the  value  of  certain  buildings  which  it  was  intended  to 
move  from  the  reservation  for  certain  military  purposes,  and 
not  intended  to  include  the  stockade  and  the  buildings  inside 
the  stockade  ? 

An9. — I  am  of  the  impression  it  was  intended  to  include 


110 


the   wli(»lc ;  hut  at  tliis  (JiHtancc  of   timo  my  recollection  is 
not  distinct. 

Jnt.  4. — Do  you  think  that  at  the  timo  you  made  this  sur- 
vey tho  Company's  aj^cnt  had  loft  their  fort? 
Ann. —  I  am  not  prepared  to  way. 

Int.  i'). — JJo  you  recollect  how  8oon  after  tlio  survey  was 
made  the  ('oiii|»aiiy  did  leave  the  fort? 

Ann. — I  don't  remember  whether  thev  were  there  or  not  at 
the  time  of  the  appraisement. 

Jnt.  0. — l^o  you  recollect  a  line  of  stakes,  commencing  at 
a  point  about  eighty  yards  to  the  east  of  the  Catholic  Church 
and  running  from  that  point,  in  a  southerly  direction,  to  the 
river,  on  the  reserve  at  the  time  of  this  survey? 

Ann. — I  cannot  say  I  do;  nor  would  I  have  thought  of  the 
line  of  stakes  if  1  had  not  seen  it  alluded  to  in  the  report  of 
the  board  of  survey. 

Jnt.  7. — Do  you  not  recollect  that  your  board  was  ordered 
to  survey  certain  improvements  on  the  military  reserve,  and 
that  you  did  examine  improvements  lying  to  the  west  ol  i 
certain  line  of  stakes? 

Ans. — It  is  my  general  impression  that  we  took  into  con- 
sideration all  the  improvements  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany on  the  military  reserve;  I  cannot  be  positive,  however. 
Int.  H. — Would  your  impression  be  so  strong  as  not  to  yield 
to  the  fact,  if,  in  a  report  made  at  the  time,  it  appeared  you 
did  not  so  examine  them? 

An-i. — My  impression  is  not  so  strong  as  that  I  would  allow 
it  to  weigh  against  the  official  report  of  the  board. 

Int.  U, — Were  you  on  any  other  board  to  examine  any  other 
improvements  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  on  this  military 
reserve  ? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  remember. 

Jnt.  10. — Do  you  recollect  about  what  time  the  agents  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  left  Vancouver  ? 
Alls. — I  do  not. 

Jnt.  11. — How  were  these  buildings  treated  after  the  Com- 
pany left  the  fort,  in  the  way  of  taking  away  materials  and 
destroying  the  buildings  ? 


Ill 

Avs. — Tlio  buildings  wove  in  an  oxcpodiuf^ly  dilnpidatod 
condition,  nearly  till  ruined,  in  some  in.stani'e.s  faliin;^  down. 
The  (Jovornor's  residence  had  a  lari^o  decayed  spot  in  the  floor, 
throu;^h  \vhi(!h  theground  was  visible.  Exposure  to  the  weather 
caused  sfill  (Mrlher  decay  and  dilapidation.  At  first  so,,tinels 
wore  placed  to  keep  people  out,  but  that  diil  not  prevent  dep- 
redations of  material.  I  don't  remember  whether  the  senti- 
nels were  removed  afterwards  or  not.  Home  of  the  material 
was  used  at  the  fort  for  out-buildings,  and  for  other  purposes, 
I  have  no  doubt  that  other  material  was  taken  by  irresponsible 
persons. 

Jut.  12. — Was  not  this  hole  in  the  floor  of  the  Governor's 
house  observed  by  you  after  the  Company's  agents  had  loft 
the  house  and  fort? 

Ans. — Yes,     I  think  it  was. 

Int.  \'\. — When  you  wore  at  the  Company's  fort,  in  the  win- 
tor  or  spring  of  18(30,  did  you  not  observe  lumber  or  timber, 
or  both,  in  the  centre  A  the  stockade,  intended  for  repairs? 

Arm. — My  impression  is  I  did. 

Int.  14. — Have  you  any  distinct  recollection  of  the  amount 
or  value  of    his  timber  and  lumber  and  what  became  of  it? 

Ans. — I  iiavo  none. 

Examination-in- Chief  Resumed. 


Int.  1. — Was  or  was  not  the  reason  for  permitting  these 
buildings  to  be  thus  carried  away  piece-meal,  that  they  were 
of  no  value  whatever  ? 

Ans. — I  presume  the  buildings  were  esteemed  to  be  of  so 
little  value  that  the  use  of  small  quantities  of  material  at  the 
fort  was  tolerated. 

Jas.  a.  Hardie, 
Inspector  Gen' I,  Brevet  Maj.  Gen.  U.  S.  A. 
WAsniNOTON  City,  D.  C,  July  2,  18G6. 


112 


Testimony  of  Thomas  Adams. 


Thomas  Adams  being  duly  sworn,  according  to  law,  says: 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  present  occupation,  and  resi- 
dence ? 

Ans. — Thomas  Adams ;  I  am  farming  in  Montgomery  county, 
Maryland. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  ever  visited  the  country  formerly  known 
as  American  Oregon,  and  now  embracing,  besides  that  State, 
the  Territories  of  Montana,  Washington,  and  Idaho ;  if  so, 
during  what  years  were  you  there,  and  in  what  capacity  ? 

Ans. — I  first  reached  that  Territory  in  1853,  as  assistant 
artist  in  Gove;  jr  Stevens'  Expedition.  I  was  left  in  the 
Flat-Head  country,  with  Lieuienant  John  MuUan,  to  assist  him 
in  his  explorations  in  that  winter.  I  was  left  as  special 
Indian  agent  to  the  Flat-Heads,  when  Lieutenant  Mullan  was 
ordered  to  report,  appointed  by  Governor  Stevens.  I  remained 
there  as  agent  until  November,  1855.  During  that  time  I 
went  through  the  whole  country,  including  Puget's  Sound  and 
Willamette  valley.  From  1855  until  1860,  I  remained  in  the 
country  on  my  own  account,  and  not  in  Government  employ. 
From  the  year  1860  to  1864  I  was  in  the  country,  but  made 
two  trips  to  the  States. 

Int.  3. — Did  you  during  those  years  visit  any  of  the  posts 
occupied  or  claimed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  which 
ones? 

Ans. — Yes,  I  visited  Ihe  Flat-Head  post.  Fort  Hall,  and 
Walla- Walla  post ;  also  Vancouver.  I  was  at  the  Cowlitz 
landing,  but  don't  remember  whether  there  was  a  posn  there 
or  not.     I  also  visited  Nisqually. 

Int.  4. — In  what  year  were  you  first  at  Fort  Hall  ?  Please 
to  describe  it  as  you  saw  it  then.  What  buildings  and  other 
improvements  did  it  embrace ;  of  what  was  it  constructed,  and 
in  what  state  of  repair  was  it  ? 

Ans. — I  was  first  at  l^ort  Hall  in  1853.  It  was  a  quadri- 
lateral fort,  constructed  of  adobes,  the  walls  of  the  fort  com- 
prising the  outer  and  rear  walls  of  the  buildings.     The  roofs 


113 


were  of  mud.  The  servants'  rooms,  kitchen,  blacksmith  shop, 
and  so  on,  were  very  much  dilapidated.  The  store-rooms,  and 
the  rooms  occupied  by  the  chief,  Mr.  McArthur,  were  in  very 
good  repair.  The  rooms  occupied  by  Mr.  McArthur  had  re- 
cently been  fitted  up.  There  were  no  buildings  on  the  out- 
side of  the  fort,  except  a  small  shelter,  about  ten  feet  square, 
used  as  a  milk  house.  There  was  no  corral  outside.  The  fort 
was  used  to  corral  the  animals.  I  did  not  see  any  enclosed 
ground  for  cultivation  outside  the  fort.  There  was  the  re- 
mains of  an  adobe  wall  outside  the  fort,  but  not  in  use  when 
I  was  there. 

Int.  5. — How  large  a  post  was  this,  as  near  as  you  can  re- 
member, and  can  you  form  an  opinion  wh'tt  it  would  have  cost 
to  build  such  a  post  at  the  time  you  wery  there,  in  1853  ? 

Ann. — I  think  it  was  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  feet 
by  eighty  feet.  I  should  estimate  the  cost  of  construction  in 
1853  about  six  thousand  dollars. 

Int.  6. — Do  you  remember  any  other  buildings,  especially 
mills,  at  this  point  ? 

Ans. — There  were  none  there. 

Int.  'h — What  force  was  employed,  and  what  was  the  char- 
acter and  apparent  value  of  the  trade,  and  with  whom  was  it 
carried  on? 

Ans. — I  think  there  was  about  six  employes  in  the  fort 
besides  the  superintendent.  I  had  no  means  of  judging  of  the 
character  and  value  of  the  trade  during  that  visit,  my  stay 
was  so  short. 

Int.  8. — What  did  you  learn  of  the  trade  subsequently  ? 

Ans. — That  the  trade  had  fallen  off  so  as  to  be  entirely 
worthless,  from  various  causes.     This  in  1854  and  1855. 

Int.  9. — Was  there,  judging  from  your  knowledge  of  the 
number  of  Irdians,  and  the  quantity  and  value  of  fur-bearing 
animals  in  that  district,  any  considerable  fur  trade  ? 

Ans. — Fur  skins  proper  were  scarce,  but  dressed  skins  were 
very  considerable. 

Int.  10. — Did,  or  not,  the  business  of  the  post  appear  to  be 
inconsiderable,  so  far  as  you  could  observe  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  it  was  inconsiderable. 
8  H 


114 


W 


If'' 


i 


Int.  11. — What  is  the  character  of  the  country,  within 
grazing  distance,  around  Fort  Hall? 

Ans. — Excellent  as  a  grazing  country  ;  none  better. 

Int.  12. — Was  there  any  farming  carried  on  by  the  Com- 
pany there  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Int.  13. — In  what  year  were  you  first  at  the  Flat-Head 
post,  and  when  subsequently  ? 

Ans. — I  was  there  in  the  spring  of  1864,  and  was  there 
every  year  until  1862. 

Int.  14. — Please  to  describe  it,  as  you  have  done  Fort  Hall; 
its  materials,  buildings,  and  improvements. 

Ans. — It  was  a  wooden  building,  about  twenty-four  by  six- 
teen feet,  of  one  story,  with  a  bark  roof;  one  wooden  bas- 
tion, about  fourteen  feet  square ;  and  two  store-rooms,  each 
ten  feet  square  ;  also  a  log  corral,  about  sixty  feet  square. 

Int.  15. — In  what  condition  were  the  buildings,  and  what 
would  it  have  cost  to  rebuild  them? 

Ans. — They  were  barely  habitable,  and  would  have  cost 
about  twelve  hundred  dollars.     This  was  in  1854  ? 

Int.  16. — What  was  the  force  there  ? 

Ans. — Two  men,  an  Indian  boy  to  herd  cattle,  and  a  clerk. 
This  was  the  permanent  force  at  the  post.  When  they  moved 
or  carried  furs  down,  they  got  Indian  help. 

Int.  17. — Do  you  know  anything  of  the  trade  in  furs  or 
skins  at  that  time,  or  subsequently  ? 

Ans. — The  trade  there  was  considerable.  I  would  not  con- 
sider it  a  remun'^rative  trade,  for  the  reason  there  was  a  good 
deal  of  opposition  in  the  trade,  making  the  price  of  furs  high. 


Cross-Examination . 


Int.  1. — Were  you  ever  at  Fort  Hall,  after  your  visit  there 
in  1853,  while  it  was  occupied  by  the  Company  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Int.  2. — Is  not  your  personal  knowledge  of  it,  and  of  its 
trade,  as  a  post  of  the  Company,  from  your  own  observation 
at  that  time  ? 


115 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  of  course. 

Int.  3. — Were  there  not  a  good  many  skins  held  by  the  In- 
dians, and  beavers  trapped  by  them,  in  1856,  in  the  Snake 
country  ? 

Ans. — Yes  ;  I  should  say  there  was.  I  was  trading  there 
myself  in  1856. 

Int.  4. — Does  not  the  land  around  Fort  Hall  produce  fine 
grass,  suitable  for  hay,  and  of  great  value  for  cattle  and 
horses  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  5.— In  what  Territory  is  Fort  Hall  at  the  present  time? 

Ans. — Idaho. 

Inf.  6,— Do  not  the  tribes  which  trade  with  the  Flat-Head 
post,  roam  over  countries  abounding  in  furs,  and  have  large 
quantities  of  furs  annually  to  dispose  of? 

Ans.— Yea,  sir;  between  the  years  1853  to  1860.  The 
whites  now  catch  ten  beavers  to  the  Indians'  one. 

Int.  7.— In  what  Territory  is  this  Flat-Head  post  at  the 
present  time  ? 

Ans. — Montana. 


Uxamination-in- Chief  Resumed. 

Int.  1.— What  furs  or  skins  are  obtained  at  the  Flat-Head 
post,  or  at  Fort  Hall? 

Ans. — Beaver,  otter,  marten,  fisher,  and  fox — the  red  and 
cross  foxes — winter  weasels  or  ermine,  and  bear  and  wolf, 
and  dressed-skins  of  deer,  elk,  sheep,  moose,  and  antelope  and 
buffalo. 

Int.  2. — Of  the  kinds  of  furs  and  dressed-skins  you  have 
mentioned  brought  into  these  posts,  how  many  of  them  are 
valuable  sorts,  and  what  proportion  do  they  bear  to  the  whole 
amount  ? 

Ans. — The  bear,  fisher,  and  marten  are  the  valuable  skins, 
and  are  obtained  in  less  quantities  than  the  beaver,  otter, 
wolf,  and  fox. 

Int.  3. — Are  those  valuable  skins  obtained  in  large  quanti- 


116 

ties  or  not  ?  Give,  if  you  can,  some  idea  of  the  amount  of  each, 
and  whether  the  trade  is  now  remunerative. 

Alls. — For  reasons  stated — that  is  on  account  of  the  oppo- 
sition— I  do  not  think  it  is  remunerative. 

Int.  4. — Have  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ever,  within  your 
time,  kept  any  large  bands  of  cattle  or  horses  at  either  of 
their  posts  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Cross-Eamination  Resumed. 


I>l! 


Int.  1. — Were  you  acquainted  with  the  price  of  furs  in 
London,  England,  during  the  time  you  have  mentioned  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Int.  2. — Were  there  not  bands  of  horses  and  cattle  at  these 
two  posts  in  1853  and  1854  ? 

Ans. — There  were  none  at  Fort  H.all,  to  my  knowledge;  I 
did  not  see  or  hear  of  them.  At  the  Flat-Head  post  I  should 
say  there  were  one  hundred  horses  and  about  one  hundred 
and  fifty  cattle.  I  understood  they  were  private  property  of 
Mr.  McDonald,  agent  of  the  Company  at  Fort  Colvile. 

Thomas  Adams. 

Washington,  D.  C,  Jidi/  2,  1866. 


District  op  Columbia,     \ 
Counts/  of  Washingon.  J 

I,  Nicholas  Callan,  a  notary  public  in  and  for  the  county 
and  district  aforesaid,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing 
depositions  hereto  annexed,  of  Rufus  Ingalls,  U.  S.  Grant, 
James  W.  Nesmith,  Justus  Steinberger,  Charlej  B.  Wagner, 
William  A.  Howard,  Joseph  K.  Barnes,  Chauncey  McKeever. 
Andrew  J.  Smith,  Thomas  Nelson,  C.  C.  Augur,  James  A. 
Hardie,  Thomas  Adams,  witnesses  produced  by  and  on  behalf 
of  tlie  United  States  in  the  matter  of  the  claims  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  against  the  same,  now  pending  before  the 
British  and  American  joint  commission  for  the  adjustment  of 


117 

the  sain  3,  were  taken  before  me,  at  the  office  of  said  commis- 
sion, No.  355  11  street  north,  in  the  city  of  Washington,  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  and  reduced  to  writing  under  my  direction 
by  Nicholas  Callan,  jr.,  a  person  agreed  upon  by  Ebcn  F. 
Stone,  Esq.,  attorney  for  the  United  States,  and  Edward 
Lander,  Esq.,  attorney  for  said  Company,  beginning  on  the 
4th  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1866,  and  terminating  on  the  10th  day 
of  August,  A.  D.  1866,  according  to  the  several  dates  ap- 
pended to  the  several  depositions  when  they  were  signed 
respectively. 

I  further  certify  that  to  each  of  said  witnesses,  before  his 
examination,  I  administered  the  following  oath:  "You  swear 
that  the  evidence  you  shall  give  in  the  matter  of  the  claim  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  United  States  of 
America  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but 
the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ; "  that  after  the  same  was  reduced 
to  writing,  the  deposition  of  each  witness  was  carefully  read 
and  then  signed  by  him. 

I  further  certify  that  Eben  F.  Stone,  Esq.,  and  Edward 
Lander,  Esq.,  were  personally  present  during  the  examina- 
tion and  cross-examination  of  all  of  said  witnesses,  and  the 
reading  and  signing  of  their  depositions. 

I  further  certify  that  the  certified  copy  of  the  proceedings 
of  a  certain  military  board  of  survey,  annexed  to  the  deposi- 
tion of  Chauncey  McKeever,  and  marked  "A  1,"  is  the  one 
referred  to  in  his  testimony,  and  that  of  A.  J.  Smith  and  of 
J.  A.  Hardie;  that  the  one  attached  to  the  deposition  of  J. 
K.  Barnes,  marked  "A  2,"  is  the  one  referred  to  in  his  depo- 
sition ;  and  the  one  annexed  to  the  deposition  of  C.  C.  Augur, 
marked  "A  3,"  is  the  one  referred  to  in  his  deposition. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 

[l.  s.]       and  official  seal  this  tenth  day  of  August,  A.  D. 
1866. 

N.  Callan, 
Notary  Public, 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION 


ON  THE 


HUDSON'S  BAY  AND    PUGET'S   SOUND   AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES'  CLAIMS. 


m 
U 


m 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
ayainst  the  United  States,  before  the  British  and  American 
Joint  Commission  on  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Companies'  claims. 

Deposition  of  Major  Robert  McFeeJy,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio, 
taken  before  me,  George  H.  Harries,  a  notary  public 
within  and  for  the  county  of  Hamilton,  in  the  State  of 
Ohio  on  the  sixth  day  of  October,  in  the  year  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-six,  between  the  hours  of  eight  o'clock, 
A.  M.,  and  six  o'clock,  P.  M.,  at  the  law  oflSce  of  Stallo 
&  Kittredge,  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  Hamilton  county, 
Ohio,  pursuant  to  agreement,  to  be  read  in  evidence  on 
behalf  of  the  United  States. 

Testimony  of  Major  Robert  McFeely. 

Ques.  1. — What  is  your  name,  occupation,  and  place  of  res- 
idence? 

Ans. — My  name  is  Robert  McFeely;  I  am  a  major  and 
commissary  of  subsistence  and  brevet  colonel  United  States 
army ;  my  present  place  of  residence  is  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

Ques.  2. — Have  you  ever  resided  in  Washington  Territory  ? 
If  yea,  when,  and  where,  and  how  long  ? 

Ans. — I  have ;  at  Fort  Vancouver,  from  January,  1853,  un- 
til the  fall  of  1860.  I  was  stationed  there  at  different  inter- 
vals. 

Ques.  3. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  post  Vancouver,  in 
Washington  Territory,  which  was  formerly  claimed  and  occu- 
pied by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company?    If  so,  please  state  when 


119 


you  first  became  acquainted  with  it,  how  long  you  have  resided 
there. 

Ans. — I  am;  I  was  first  there  in  January,  1853,  and  was 
stationed  at  the  military  post  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  fort  for  three  or  four  months  immediately  succeeding 
this  time,  and  at  different  periods  from  that  until  October  or 
November,  1857,  and  continuously  from  that  time  up  to  Sep- 
tember or  October,  1860. 

Ques.  4. — Will  you  please  to  describe  the  buildings  of  the 
Company  at  that  post,  giving,  as  nearly  as  you  can,  the  num- 
ber, stating  the  material  of  which  they  were  built,  and  the 
manner  in  which  they  were  constructed,  and  their  condition  at 
the  time  when  you  last  saw  them. 

Ans. — The  post  or  fort  of  Hudson's  Bay  proper  was  a 
stockade  enclosure,  the  stockade  being  about  16  or  18  feet 
high,  and  occupying  a  space  of  ground  about  five  acres,  as 
near  as  I  can  tell.  Within  the  stockade  there  were  some  eight 
or  ten  buildings,  store-houses,  and  residences,  all  of  which 
were  wooden  buildings.  The  store-houses  were  constructed  of 
planks,  about  three  inches  in  thickness,  fastened  to  upright 
posts.  The  main  store-house  was  a  two-story  building.  I 
think  the  others  were  one  story,  except  the  residences ;  they 
were  old,  almost  uninhabitable,  the  material  being  rotten  and 
decayed  from  time  and  exposure. 

Ques.  5. — What,  in  your  opinion,  was  the  value  of  the  fort, 
buildings,  and  improvements  belonging  to  the  Company  at  this 
post? 

Ans. — To  the  United  States,  I  would  state  the  building  had 
no  value  at  all  in  1860,  either  as  store-houses  or  for  quarters. 
If  sold  at  public  sale,  I  doubt  whether  they  would  have  brought 
more  than  the  value  of  the  land,  or  a  trifle  more,  at  least.  To 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  I  could  not  state  what  was  their 
value.  That  would  depend  upon  the  necessity.  I  suppose  they 
were  the  only  Company  or  individuals  that  kept  any  property 
of  that  kind. 

Ques.  6. — What,  in  your  judgment,  would  the  land  and 
buildings  have  sold  for  at  public  sale? 

Ans. — I  would  like,  before  answering,  to  add  a  little  to  the 


120 


description  of  the  property  :  When  I  first  arrived  there,  there 
were  a  number  of  small  buildings  outside  the  stockade,  and  a 
large  store-house,  called  the  salmon-house,  near  the  river. 
There  were  about  fifteen  small  buildings  occupied  by  the  em- 
ployes, with  fields  enclosed  by  fences;  probably  100  acres  of 
ground,  an  old  saw-mill,  I  think,  and  a  grist-mill.  I  don't  know 
whether  either  of  them  was  running  at  that  time.  The  land 
and  buildings — the  whole  of  it — could  not,  I  think,  be  sold  for 
$100,000  at  the  time  when  I  first  arrived  there. 

Ques.  7. — What  do  you  mean  to  include,  all  the  land  en- 
closed and  occupied,  as  well  within  as  without  the  stockade, 
with  the  buildings  upon  it?      . 

Ans. — I  mean  to  include  the  land  enclosed  by  fences,  with 
the  buildings  and  improvements  thereon,  as  well  within  as 
without  the  stockade. 

Ques.  8. — What  was  the  character  of  the  land  enclosed  *« 
that  post? 

Ans. — The  land  was  good  for  agricultural  purposes,  on 
the  bottom  of  the  river,  as  rich  probably  as  any  laud  in  the 
valley  of  the  Columbia. 

Ques.  9. — What  was  the  condition  and  value  of  the  land 
adjoining  Vancouver,  and  extending  from  a  post  say  five 
miles  above  the  fort,  along  the  river  to  the  Cathlapootl  or 
Lewes'  Forks,  and  reaching  back  into  the  interior  an  average 
distance  of  ten  miles,  not  included  in  your  previous  answer. 

Ans. — The  most  of  that  country  I  could  give  only  the 
character  from  hearsay.  The  portion  of  it  of  which  I  speak 
from  my  own  knowledge  is  west  of  the  Cascade  Mountains, 
including  portions  of  the  country  traveled  over  by  me  from 
Fort  Dalles  to  the  old  Mission,  where  Pendosy  was.  The 
Yakama  Mission  was  rough,  rolling  country,  alternating  with 
timber  and  prairies,  and  covered  with  good  bunch  grass,  being 
good  forage  for  animals ;  some  good  agricultural  land  along 
the  streams  and  water-courses.  The  land  on  the  hills  was 
generally  of  a  sandy,  gravelly  nature. 

Ques.  10. — What  was  the  character  of  the  soil  of  the  lands 
back  from  the  streams  as  to  its  fertility  ? 


121 


An8. — It  was  not  fcrtilo  land,  being  sandy  and  gravelly, 
and  very  dry  during  the  summer  season. 

Ques.  11. — Of  the  100  acres  (about)  of  land  that  you  have 
spoken  of  as  being  enclosed  near  the  stockade,  what  propor- 
tion of  it  was  under  cultivation  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  think  over  twenty  or  thirty  acres  of  it,  which 
were  cultivated  for  garden  purposes,  the  lands  within  the 
enclosures  being  mostly  used  for  grazing,  and  for  hay  or 
grass. 

Ques.  12. — Have  you  ever  visited  the  old  Fort  Walla-Walla, 
near  Wallula?  If  yea,  please  describe  the  fort  and  the 
country  adjoining  it  as  particularly  as  you  can. 

Ana. — I  visited  it  in  July,  1853.  The  fort  consisted  of 
two  or  three,  probably  four,  small  buildings,  constructed  of 
adobe  and  logs.  The  buildings  were  small,  and  did  not  cover 
over  about  two  acres  of  ground,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 
The  nature  of  the  country  adjoining  was  barren  and  sandy, 
with  the  exception  of  narrow  strips  near  the  stream  Touchet, 
and  other  streams,  covered  with  little  vegetation,  except  sage 
bushes. 

Ques.  13. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  value  of  that 
fort,  the  buildings  and  improvements  erected  therewith  ?  If 
yes,  state  what,  in  your  judgment,  was  their  value. 

Ans. — I  saw  no  land  there  enclosed  or  under  cultivation. 
I  do  not  think  that  the  cost  of  the  construction  of  the  build- 
ings exceeded  $5,000. 

Ques.  14. — What  use,  if  any,  was  made  of  this  post  by  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  the  time  you  were  there  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know,  excepting  that  it  was  occupied  by 
some  one  or  two  half-breeds,  who  were  said  to  be  employes  of 
the  Company. 

Ques.  15. — Have  you  ever  visited  che  post  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  at  Fort  Boise?  If  yea,  state  when,  and  de- 
scribe, as  particularly  as  you  can,  the  construction  of  the 
fort,  and  the  buildings  and  improvements  connected  therewith. 

Ans. — I  visited  Fort  Bois^  m  the  summer  of  1854.  The 
fort  consisted  of  one  or  two  adobe  buildings,  or  one  building, 


122 

with  three  or  four  small  apartments,  and  a  small  corral. 
Those  were  all  the  improvements. 

Que8.  16. — Have  you  any  knowlctlgo  of  the  value  of  this 
fort,  with  the  buildings  and  improvements  connected  there- 
with ?  If  yea,  please  to  state  what,  in  your  judgment,  was 
their  value  at  the  time  that  you  observed  them. 

Ans. — From  the  nature  of  the  buildings,  and  the  material 
of  which  they  were  constructed,  I  would  say  that  the  cost  of 
the  construction  and  material  did  not  exceed  $2,000. 

Ques.  17. — What  was  the  character  of  the  land  in  the 
vicinity  of  Fort  Boise ;  what  quantity,  if  any,  was  enclosed 
and  under  cultivation  ?  k 

Ans. — The  land  seemed  to  be  sandy  and  barren.  I  saw  no 
lands  enclosed  or  under  cultivation. 

Ques.  18. — Have  you  visited  any  other  posts  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  in  Washington  Territory  ?  If  yea,  state 
what  ones,  and  when. 

Ans. — I  never  visited  any  other. 

Ques.  19. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  any  other  matter 
relating  to  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against 
the  United  States  ?  If  yea,  please  to  state  the  same  as  fully 
as  if  you  were  particularly  interrogated  in  relation  thereto. 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect  of  any  information  I  have  in  regard 
to  that. 

Cross-Examination  hy  Judge  Edward  Lander,  on  behalf  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company. 


Ques.  1. — In  reply  to  the  question  in  reference  to  post 
Vancouver,  you  stated  that  the  buildings  were  old,  almost 
uninhabitable,  the  material  being  rotten  and  decayed  from 
time  and  exposure.  Is  not  the  period  of  time  to  which  you 
refer  in  the  summer  and  fall  1860,  or  thereabout  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir,  it  is  the  time  when  I  last  saw  the  post. 

Ques.  2. — Had  you,  at  that  time,  occasion  particularly  to 
examine  these  buildings,  with  reference  to  their  condition,  by 
any  means  of  examination  known  to  mechanics  for  the  pur- 


123 

poso  of  testing  buildings,  or  was  your  opinion  formed  by  look- 
ing at  thcin  alone? 

Ans. — I  had  no  occasion  to  examine  them.  My  opinion  was 
formed  from  general  observation  and  from  frequently  visiting 
the  fort,  and  also  from  having  occupied  one  of  the  buildings 
as  a  commissary  store-house  for  the  United  States,  in  the  fall 
and  winter  18r)7  and  IS/iS,  which  I  found  insecure  for  the 
storage  of  Government  supplies,  and  then  vacated  for  that 
reason. 

Ques.  3. — You  appraised  the  price  and  value  of  the  100 
acres  enclosed  land  and  buildings  of  the  Company  at  Fort 
Vancouver.  At  what  time  do  you  wish  that  valuation  to  be 
taken? 

An8, — At  the  time  I  last  visited  or  saw  the  same  to  the  fall 
of  1860. 

Ques.  4. — What  portion  of  that  value  do  you  think  applies 
to  the  land,  and  what  to  the  buildings? 

Ans. — I  should  say  about  one-quarter  for  the  lands,  the  re- 
maining three-quarters  to  the  buildings. 

Ques.  5. — You  have  spoken  in  answer  to  interrogation  9,  of 
your  own  personal  knowledge  of  the  country  west  of  the  Cas- 
cades ? 

Ans. — I  mean  to  say  east  of  the  Cascades. 

Ques.  6. — Is  that  the  country  to  which  you  refer,  in  answer 
to  question  10,  as  to  the  character  of  the  soil  of  the  lands  back 
from  the  stream? 

Ans. — It  was;  and  in  addition,  the  description  would  answer 
the  country  north  of  Vancouver,  which  I  visited,  for  four  or 
five  miles,  Avith  the  exception  of  the  lands  back  of  Vancou- 
ver being  more  thickly  timbered  and  prairies  smaller. 

Ques.  7. — Do  you  not  know  of  large  crops  of  wheat  being 
raised  upon  the  country  called  the  Mill  Plain,  back  of  Van- 
couver, while  you  resided  at  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  nor  knowledge  in  regard  to 
that. 

Ques.  8. — Have  you  ever  noticed  or  examined  farms  on  the 
Mill  Plain,  or  the  other  plains  back  of  Vancouver,  or  have  you 


124 


Mt 


i^■)< 

hi 


m 


any  ncquaintnncc  with  the  amount  or  kind  of  produce  raised 
tlicrcoii? 

Ann. — I  have  not. 

Qucs.  9. — Have  you  ridden  often  over  the  land  north  of 
Vancouver? 

Ann. — I  have  ridden  frequently  north  as  far  as  what  is  called 
Fourth  Plain,  about  four  to  four  and  a  half  mile.s. 

Qucs.  10. — Have  you  ever  been  off  the  road  in  that  direc- 
tion ? 

Ann. — I  never  have  to  any  great  distance;  probably  a  mile 
or  so — huiitiii<;. 

Quis.  11. — Do  you  think  that  your  recollection  of  the 
country  back  of  Vancouver,  of  which  you  have  spoken,  ac- 
quired in  the  way  you  have  mentioned,  is  sufficiently  accu- 
rate at  this  distance  of  time  for  you  to  designate  all  of  it  as 
being  sandy,  gravelly,  and  very  dry? 

Ans. — I  think  it  is  for  that  portion  which  came  under  my 
immediate  observation. 

Qiu'n.  12. — IIow  long  were  you  at  Fort  Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — I  was  there  for  two  or  three  days,  in  July,  1853,  on 
my  way  to  Fort  Owen,  and  again  in  September,  on  my  return, 
for  two  or  three  days  more. 

Qucs.  13. — Did  you  go  into  camp  near  the  fort,  or  did  you, 
during  the  time,  stop  inside  the  fort? 

Ans. — I  was  in  camp  on  both  periods  mentioned,  within  two 
or  three  miles  from  the  fort.  I  visited  the  fort,  I  think,  every 
day  during  the  time  I  remained  there. 

Ques.  14. — Was  this  fort  a  walled  and  bastion ed  fort  or  not? 

Ans. — I  think  it  was  a  walled  fort ;;  \fhether  it  was  bas- 
tioned  or  not  I  don't  recollect.  The  bvildings  formed  part  of 
the  wall.     My  impression  is  that  it  v.as  not  stockaded. 

Ques.  15. — Have  you  anjf  recollection  of  length  of  a  wall 
on  either  side  of  the  fort,  of  its  height  and  width  ? 

Ans. — From  the  best  of  my  recollection,  I  think  either  side 
was  longer  than  forty  or  fifty  feet,  and  the  height  of  the  wall 
not  over  eight  or  nine  feet. 

Ques.  16. — Is  your  recollection  of  this  wall  and  its  dimen- 
sions as  accurate  as  that  of  any  other  portion  of  the  fort  ? 


125 


Am. — r  think  not. 

QucH,  17. — You  have  spoken  of  tho  biiil(liii;^s  inside  the  fort 
as  being  constructed  of  adobe  and  logs.  PUsise  state  in  what 
manner  they  were  constructed  of  those  materials. 

Ann. — I  think  part  or  the  whole  of  one  or  two  buildings 
was  of  adobe,  and  others  had  tho  api)earance  of  being  con- 
structed  >f  logs  ;  but  my  recollection  is  not  accurate  enough 
to  give  anything  but  my  general  impression  of  their  appear 
unce. 

Ques.  18, — Have  you,  at  the  present  date,  anything  more 
than  a  general  impression  as  to  how  the  fort  looked,  without 
any  very  accurate  or  definite  knowledge  of  it? 

Ans. — I  have  not;  not  more  than  a  general  impression, 
without  any  accurate  or  definite  knowledge  of  it. 

QucH.  1!>. — Was  tho  estimate  that  you  have  given  of  the 
cost  of  Fort  Walla-W^lla  made  at  the  time  you  saw  it,  or  has 
it  been  made  lately  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  that  I  made  an  estimate  at  the 
time  I  saw  it ;  only  recently,  after  I  read  the  pamphlet  setting 
forth  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Qncs.  20. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  cost  of  making 
adobes  ? 

Ans. — I  am  not. 

Ques.  21. — Could  you  make  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  build- 
ing a  fort  or  other  buildings  of  adobes,  of  which  you  did  not 
know  the  actual  length  of  the  different  walls,  their  width  and 
height,  the  cost  of  making  adobes,  placed  or  getting  it  there, 
and  the  cost  of  the  labor  employed  at  the  time  of  the  building 
or  fort  ? 

Ans. — I  could  not ;  my  general  estimate  of  the  cost  of  these 
buildings  was  made  on  the  basis  of  knowledge  of  the  kind  of 
labor  and  the  wages  of  the  employes  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  by  whom,  I  presume,  these  forts  were  built.. 

Ques.  22. — Would  not  the  cost  of  getting  adobes  far  into 
the  interior  as  this  fort  was,  the  provisioning  of  them  there, 
and  the  force  necessary  to  protect  them  from  Indians  while 
the  fort  was  being  built,  add  very  largely  to  the  cost  of 
building  it  ? 


126 


t 


I 


Ans. — It  would,  if  they  were  brought  there  for  that  especial 
purpose,  and  not  employed  for  anything  else,  on  account  of  the 
Hudson's  Jiay  Company  always  maintaining  friendly  relations 
with  the  Indians.  On  account  of  the  kind  of  provision  with 
which  they  subsisted  their  employes,  the  small  wages  which 
they  paid  to  them,  they  were  enabled  to  construct  these  build- 
ings at  much  less  expense  than  they  could  probably  be  built 
by  others. 

Ques.  23. — Is  your  estimate,  then,  based  upon  what,  in  your 
opinion,  buildings,  as  you  recollect  them,  ought  to  have  cost 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — It  is. 

Qiics  24. — When  you  visited  Walla- Walla,  at  the  time  you 
spoke  of,  were  you  not  on  the  road  from  Fort  Dalles  to  Bitter- 
root  Valley  ?  If  so,  state  by  what  road  you  came  to  Walla- 
Walla,  and  by  what  you  returned. 

Ans. — I  went  by  the  interior  trail  or  river  road,  and  struck 
the  river  road  eight  or  ten  miles  below  the  fort,  then  struck 
across  to  the  Touchet,  followed  along  that  four  or  five  miles, 
struck  across  to  the  Snake  river,  a  distance  of  thirty-five  or 
forty  miles ;  I  came  back  the  same  road  from  the  Touchet  to 
Walla-Walla. 

Ques.  25. — Is  the  country  described  by  you  around  Walla- 
Walla,  that  along  the  river  bank,  from  eight  to  ten  miles  be- 
low the  fort,  and  from  the  fort  to  the  Touchet,  and  along  that 
river,  as  scon  by  you  in  your  journey  ? 

Ans. — It  is. 

Ques.  26. — Did  you  seo  on  that  road,  before  you  got  to  the 
Touched,  any  signs  of  bunch  grass? 

Ans. — I  think  not ;  it  is  about  the  worst  country  I  ever 
saw,  along  the  river,  most  of  the  way. 

Ques.  27. — At  the  time  you  visited  Fort  Boise,  was  it  be- 
fore or  after  the  flood  that  took  place  there,  if  you  know  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect  of  hearing  of  any  flood  there. 

Ques.  28. — Who  was  the  officer  iu  charge  of  For^  Bois^  at 
the  time  you  were  there  ? 

Ans. — It  was  one  of  Governor  Ogden's  sons. 

Ques,  29. — Is  your  estimate  of  the  cost  of  these  buildings 


127 

based  upon  the  same  reasons  as  your  estimate  of  the  cost  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Comjiany,  of  buildings  built  by  their  ser- 
vants, or  not? 

Ans. — It  is. 

Ques.  30. — ITow  long  were  you  at  Fort  Boise  ? 

Ans. — I  was  encamped  in  the  vicinity,  going  and  returning, 
some  four  or  five  days  in  all ;  I  visited  the  fort  two  or  three 
times. 

Ques.  31. — Is  not  your  knowledge  and  recollection  of  Fort 
Boisfe,  at  this  time,  rather  indefinite  and  uncertain  ? 

Ans. — It  is. 


Ite- Examination. 


Qiies.  1. — When  did  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  leave  the 
buildings  at  Fort  A^ancouver  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know.  My  impression  is  the  buildings  were 
occupied  by  some  of  their  agents  or  employes,  at  the  time  I 
left,  in  the  fall  of  18G0. 

Ques.  2. — Did  or  not  your  description  and  estimate  of  the 
Company's  property  at  or  near  Vancouver  include  the  build- 
ings and  improvements  belonging  to  the  Company  on  Sauvie's 
Island,  or  not  ? 

Ans. — It  did  not ;  I  never  was  on  Sauvie's  Island. 

Maj.  ^  C,  Brvt.  Col.  U.  S.  A. 


Ques.  3. — In  your  ans^vor  to  the  cross-interrogatory  No.  4, 
w^bat  portion  of  that  valu  do  you  think  applies  to  the  land, 
and  what  to  the  buildiitgs  ?  The  notary  has  you  now  written 
down  one-quarter,  i.  c.  $25,000,  for  the  land,  and  three-quar- 
ters, i.  e.  '^75,000,  fo'  the  buildings.  Is  that  what  you  said  or 
intended? 

Ans. — What  I  ince.ided  was,  that  the  one-quarter  estimate 
of  tb  .  aluatioUj  in  my  judgment,  was  what  the  land  was 
worth,  and  the  three-quarters  of  the  estimate  what  I  consid- 
ered the  buildings  and  improvements  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  worth. 


128 

Int.  4. — What,  in  your  opinion,  would  the  buildings  and 
iniprovements  have  sold  for  independently  from  the  land  ? 

Ana. — For  about  what  the  material  was  worth  for  fuel, 
probably  not  exceeding  $4,000  or  $5,000. 

Re-Oross-.Exaniinaiion. 


'>)>,! 
■W 


Int.  1. — Did  you  consider  the  price  of  $100,000,  Avhich  you 
put  upon  certain  lands  and  buildings,  a  fair  estimate  at  the 
time  you  made  it? 

Ans. — I  did  ;  a  fair  and  full  estimate. 

(Signed)  R.  MacFeely. 

Maj.  ^  as.,  Brvt.  Col.  U.  S.  A. 


I,  George  II.  Harries,  a  Notary  Public  within  and  for  the 
county  of  Hamilton,  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  do  hereby  certify 
that  Robert  MacFeely  was  by  me  first  sworn  to  testify  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  and  that  the 
depositions  by  him  subscribed,  as  above  set  forth,  were  reduced 
to  writing  by  myself  in  the  presence  of  the  said  R.  MacFeely, 
and  were  subscribed  by  the  said  MacFeely  in  my  presence,  and 
were  taken  on  the  6th  day  of  October,  A.  D.  186G,  by  agree- 
ment, at  the  office  of  Stallo  &  Kittredge,  in  the  city  of  Cincin- 
nati, Ohio;  that  I  am  not  counsel  or  attorney  of  either  party, 
or  otherwise  interested  in  the  event  of  this  suit. 

(Signed)  Geo.  II.  Harries, 

Notary  Public,  Hamilton  Co.,  Ohio. 

Notary's  fees  $10,  paid  by  defendant's  attorneys. 


129 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Compamj^ 
now  pending  before  the  British  and  American  Joint  Com- 
mission on  the  Claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puf/et's 
Sound  Ayricnltural  Companies  against  the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  David  H.  Vinton,  Deputy  Quartermaster  Gen- 
eral and  Brevet  Brigadier  General  United  States  Army, 
taken  by  agreement  between  Edward  Lander,  counsel  Tor 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  E.  F.  Stone,  counsel 
for  the  United  States. 

First.  To  the  first  interrogatory,  viz  :  What  is  your  name, 
place  of  residence,  and  occupation  ? — he  saith,  David  H.  Vin- 
son, New  York,  Deputy  Quartermaster  General  and  Brevet 
Brigadier  General  United  States  Army. 

Second.  To  the  second  interrogatory,  viz :  Have  you  ever 
been  in  what  was  formerly  Oregon  Territory  ?  If  yea,  when, 
and  where,  and  for  how  long  a  period  ? — he  saith.  Yes,  sir ;  in 
1849,  about  four  months,  including  the  time  going  thither  and 
returning  to  San  Francisco. 

Third.  To  the  third  interrogatory,  viz:  Have  you  any 
knowledge  of  the  post  at  Vancouver,  which  was  formerly 
claimed  and  occupied  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? — he 
saith,  T  have  been  there. 

Fourtij.  To  the  fourth  interrogatory,  viz:  Did  you  ever 
mo,k«,  m  iho  form  of  a  report,  an  estimate  of  the  value  of  the 
fo;  t  ."o<^^  ")uildings  at  Vancouver,  which  were  claimed  and  oc- 
cupied I  vtho  Hudson's  Bay  Company? — he  saith,  Yes;  it  was 
reduced  lo  writing. 

Filth.  To  the  fifth  interrogatory,  viz  :  Please  to  look  at  the 
paper  here  produced,  and  stat^whether  or  not  the  same  is  a 
true  copy  of  the  report  made  by  you,  and  referred  to  in  the 
pre*rious  question — he  saith.  It  is  a  true  copy  of  a  copy  con- 
te  aed  in  ray  official  letter-book. 

.-^rth.  To  tht  sixth  interrogatory,  viz:  When  was  the  copy 
in  V' ur  letter-book  made,  and  have  you  or  not  any  doubt  that 
the  3ame  is  an  exact  copy  of  the  original? — he  saith,  The  copy 
9  H 


M 
1 1 


I 


130 


Eli 


in  my  letter-book  was  made,  I  presume,  on  the  day  that  the 
original  was  written ;  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  it  is 
an  exact  copy  of  the  original. 

Seventh.  To  the  seventh  interrogatory,  viz  :  Please  to  look 
at  the  paper  heretofore  produced,  and  now  to  be  annexed  to 
this  deposition,  marked  A,  and  state  whether  the  same  con- 
tains a  true  statement  of  your  judgment,  at  the  time,  of  the 
value  of  the  buildings  and  other  property  described  therein — 
he  saith.  The  paper  referred  to  contains  a  true  statement,  of 
my  judgment,  as  to  the  value  of  the  b  aidings  and  other  prop- 
erty described  therein, 

(The  introducti  n  of  the  paper  marked  A  objected  to  as 
incompetent ;  and  1 1  • ,  because  the  same  appears  to  have 
been  made  by  an  office-  'ting  in  a  judicial  capacity  under  or- 
ders to  form  and  set  out  a  decision  on  matters  now  at  issue ; 
and  further,  because  it  does  not  appear  that  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  had  any  notice  whatever  of  the  proceeding. 
The  latter  part  of  the  question  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

The  examination  of  the  witness  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States,  by  E.  F.  Stone,  counsel,  was  here  concluded,  and  the 
examination  on  the  part  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  by 
Edward  Lander,  commenced. 

First.  To  the  first  interrogatory,  viz :  In  the  estimate  you 
made  of  those  buildings,  did  you  take  into  consideration  their 
value  to  the  owners  as  a  trading  establishment  and  post,  or 
did  you  estimate  the  actual  price  and  value  of  the  improve- 
ments at  a  certain  and  fixed  rate  of  wages,  and  a  fixed  and  cer- 
tain price  for  lumber? — he  saith,  To  the  first  part  of  this  ques- 
tion, I  will  answer,  that  to  the  best  of  my  remembrance  it 
was  surveyed  and  estimated  for  military  purposes,  for  which 
purpose  I  understood  that  tile  Hudson's  Bay  Company  were 
willing  to  dispose  of  it.  It  was  not  my  duty  to  estimate  the 
value  of  this  property  for  the  use  of  others.  To  the  other 
part  of  the  question,  I  answer  that  the  estimate  was  based 
upon  the  price  of  mechanics'  wages  and  that  of  ordinary  la- 
borers, and  the  price  of  lumber,  as  they  prevailed  prior  to  the 
gold  excitement ;  but  those  prices  were  adviouced  five-fold,  in 


131 

order,  as  I  supposed  at  the  time,  to  meet  the  increased  value 
of  every  class  of  labor  and  of  commodities  to  undertake  the 
construction  of  buildings  like  those  on  the  ground,  the  amount 
of  which  is  estimated  at  three  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
dollars. 

Second.  To  the  second  interrogatory,  viz  :  Do  you  know 
anything  of  the  price  of  labor  in  1846,  or  previous  thereto  ? — 
he  saith,  Nothing. 

Third.  To  the  third  interrogatory,  viz  :  Were  not  those 
buildings  useful  for  military  purposes  at  that  time,  and  was 
there  not  an  intention  of  acquiring  them  for  the  use  of  the 
troops  then  stationed  at  Vancouver? — he  saith,  They  were  not 
entirely  suitable,  but  would  be,  after  slight  modifications,  for 
quarters  and  barracks.  The  estimate  was  made  with  a  view 
to  the  purchase  of  those  buildings  for  the  use  of  troops. 

Fourth.  To  the  fourth  interrogatory,  viz  :  Have  you  ever 
expressed  any  other  opinion  personally  as  to  the  value  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company's  post  and  buildings,  or  of  the  post 
buildings  and  lands  at  Vancouver,  claimed  by  the  Company  ? 
If  so,  please  state  it — he  saith.  No,  sir;  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Fifth.  To  the  fifth  interrogatory,  viz  :  What  would  it  have 
cost  while  you  were  at  Vancouver,  in  October,  1849,  to  have 
put  up  those  buildings? — he  saith.  Referring  to  the  letter 
already  produced,  I  estimated  the  construction  of  the  build- 
ings, and  the  property  enumerated,  at  three  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  dollars  ;  that  comprehended  land  as  well  as  build- 
ings ;  and  those  buildings  consisted  of  the  dwelling-house 
occupied  by  the  chief  factor,  Mr.  Ogden,  the  dimensions  of 
which  were  80  by  40,  and  having  ten  rooms  ;  two  houses,  quar- 
ters for  sub-agents,  and  office,  40  by  40  feet ;  one  building, 
150  by  30 ;  four  store-houses,  100  by  40 ;  three  work-shops, 
42  by  30 ;  granaries,  50  by  50 ;  guard-house,  block-house, 
bakery,  and  smaller  appendages,  a  well,  &c.,  including  stock 
ade  enclosure.  Outside  the  stockade  there  were  three  large 
store-houses,  80  by  30  feet;  two  buildings,  occupied  as  barracks 
and  commissary  stores ;  numerous  out-buildings,  such  as  quar- 
ters for  laborers,  barns,  and  stables ;  also  fences  and  other 
improvements. 


m 


^v 


132 

Sixth.  To  the  sixth  interrogatory,  viz  :  You  have  stated 
that  you  included  hvnd  in  your  estimate  ;  how  much  land  was 
there,  and  at  what  price  did  you  estimate  it? — he  saith,  I 
don't  know  how  much  land  there  was,  but  so  mucli  as  would 
form  an  enclosure  around  the  buildings  mentioned.  I  made 
no  special  estimate  of  the  land. 

Seventh.  To  the  seventh  interrogatory,  viz :  What  Avas  your 
rank  in  the  service  at  the  time  you  were  at  Vancouver  ? — he 
saith,  Major  and  quartermaster  United  States  Army. 

Here  the  examination  on  both  sides  was  concluded. 

D.  H.  Vinton, 

Witness. 


8S. 


State  of  New  York,         "1 
Citt/  and  County  of  New  York,  j  ' 

I,  Theodore  Ritter,  a  notary  public  in  and  for  the  State  of 
New  York,  duly  appointed  and  authorized  by  the  Governor 
of  said  State,  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  laws  of  New  York, 
to  take  the  acknowledgment  and  proof  of  deeds,  &c.,  and  to 
administer  oaths  and  take  depositions,  do  hereby  certify  that 
on  the  ninth  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  sixty-six,  before  me  personally  ap- 
peared David  II.  Vinton,  of  the  city  of  New  York,  who  having 
first  been  sworn  according  to  law,  gave  the  foregoing  deposi- 
tion, by  him  subscribed  in  answer  to  the  foregoing  interroga- 
tories and  cross-interrogations. 

Said  deposition  was  written  out  by  me,  to  be  used  in  the 
matter  of  "  the  Claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  now 
pending  before  the  British  and  American  Joint  Commission 
on  the  Claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Agri- 
cultural Companies  against  the  United  States." 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal 
of  office,  at  the  city  of  New  York,  the  ninth  day  of  July, 
1866. 

TnEODORE  Ritter, 
Notary  Public,  New  York. 


(Notarial) 
1    Seal,    i 


having 


Agri- 


133 
A. 

Fort  Vancouver,  Oregon,  October.  1,  1849. 


^orh. 


General : 

Pursuant  to  your  order,  I  have  examined  the  property  and 
Ijuiklings  belonging  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  so  far 
as  is  practicable,  made  a  rough  estimate  of  the  cost  of  the 
buildings  occupied  by  its  agents  and  employes  at  a  time  when 
the  gold  discoveries  had  not  influenced  the  prices  of  labor  and 
materials. 

The  property  in  question,  exclusive  of  land,  consists  prin- 
cipally of  a  very  comfortable  dwelling-house,  occupied  by  the 
chief  agent,  Mr.  Ogden,  80x40  feet,  and  having  ten  rooms  ;  two 
houses,  quarters  for  sub-agents,  and  office,  40x40  feet;  one 
building,  150x30,  having  seventeen  rooms  ;  four  store-houses, 
100x40;  three  workshops,  42x30;  granary,  50x50;  guard- 
house, block-house,  bakery,  and  smaller  appendages,  well,  &c., 
including  stockade  enclosure.  These  constitute  the  "fort" 
proper;  and  the  estimated  cost  of  their  construction  may  be  set 
down  at  $40,000;  besides  which  there  are,  outside  of  the  enclo- 
sure, three  large  store-houses,  80x30  feet,  two  buildings,  occu- 
pied by  the  company  of  artillery  and  subsistence  department, 
at  this  post ;  numerous  out-buildings,  such  as  quarters  for  la- 
borers, barns  and  stables,  also  fences  and  other  improvements 
which  may  be  valued  at  $30,000.  These  estimates  are  based 
upon  the  prices  of  mechanics'  wages,  at  $2  per  diem,  and  or- 
dinary laborers  at  $1.  The  price  of  lumber  $20  per  thousand. 
At  present,  these  prices  are  advanced  five-fold,  and  if  we  mul- 
tiply the  foregoing  si  ns  accordingly,  we  shall  obtain  the  esti- 
mated cost  of  the  property  enumerated,  were  we  to  undertake 
their  construction,  viz  :  $350,000. 

I  am.  General,  most  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

D.  H.  Vinton, 

Maj.  ^  Qr.  Mr. 
Maj.  Genl.  p.  F.  Smith, 

Comd'g.  Pacific  Div.  U.  8.  -4.,  Fort  Vancouver,  Oregon. 

The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy.  D.  H.  Vinton, 

Dep.  Q.  M.  a.  ^  Bvt.  Brig.  Gen. 


134 


Office  of  Army  Clothino  and  Equipaok, 
New  York,  June  21,  1866. 
At  the  examination  of  David  H.  Vinton,  a  witness  in  the 
matter  of  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  now  pend- 
ing before  the  British  and  American  Joint  Commission  on  the 
Claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Companies  against  the  United  States,  this  paper  writing  marked 
A,  was  produced  and  shown  to  David  H.  Vinton,  and  by  him 
deposed  unto  at  the  time  of  his  examination,  before 

Theodore  Bitter, 
Notary  Public,  City,  Co.  and  Stale  N.  Y. 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claims  of  the  Hudson  8  Bay  Company 
against  the  United  States,  now  pending  before  the  British 
and  American  Joint  Commission  on  the  claims  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Companies 
against  the  United  States. 


Deposition  of  Alfred  Pleasonton,  Brevet  Brigadier  General, 
and  Major  of  the  Second  Cavalry,  taken  by  agreement 
between  Edward  Lander,  of  counsel  for  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  and  E.  F.  Stone,  of  counsel  for  the  United 
States.  The  oath  was  administered  by  United  States 
Commissioner  Osborn. 

Testimony  of  Alfred  Pleasonton. 


Qucs.  1.— What  is  your  place  of  residence,  and  present 
occupation  ? 

Ans. — Alfred  Pleasonton ;  I  am  Major  of  the  2d  United 
States  cavalry  regiment.  Brevet  Brigadier  General  in  the 
United  States  Army. 


135 

Qu€8.  2. — Have  you  ever  resided  in  what  was  formerly 
Oregon  Territory,  now  Washington  Territory ;  if  yea,  when, 
and  where,  and  for  how  long  a  period  ? 

An8. — I  was  stationed  in  Oregon  Territory,  on  the  staflf  of 
General  Harney,  as  assistant  adjutant  general,  in  the  years 
1858,  1859,  and  1860 ;  part  of  1858  and  part  of  18G0. 

Ques.  3. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  post  at  Vancou- 
ver, which  was  formerly  claimed  and  occupied  by  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company? 

Ans. — Yes  sir,  I  have. 

Ques.  4. — If  you  have  any  knowledge  of  the  fcrt  and  build- 
ings at  Vancouver,  please  to  describe  the  same,  giving  their 
condition  and  constructive  character,  as  near  as  you  can,  at 
the  time  that  you  were  acquainted  with  it. 

Ans. — The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  a  large  enclosure 
there,  or  fort  as  they  call  it,  with  a  picket-fence  around  it, 
inside  of  which  they  had  a  number  of  large  buildings,  store- 
houses, and  work-shops ;  and  outside  they  had  a  number  of 
fields  enclosed;  and  there  were  some  houses  that  some  of  their 
employes  used  to  live  in ;  but  these  latter  were  in  a  very 
dilapidated  condition,  and  I  think  they  were  removed  while  I 
was  there.  The  whole  establishment,  however,  was  out  of  re- 
pair— dilapidated;  in  fact  I  noticed  when  the  wind  would  blow 
pretty  high,  (and  it  did  not  often  blow  hard  there,)  some  of 
these  pickets  would  fall  down ;  and  the  houses  were  in  that 
way,  out  of  repair  and  dilapidated.  The  buildings  were  rude; 
they  evidently  had  been  built  for  a  number  of  years — a  long 
time.  They  were  built  for  the  purposes  for  which  they  were 
intended.  The  material  was  substantial,  but  there  was  noth- 
ing beyond  that.  • 

Ques.  5. — Have  you  any  knowledge,  of  the  value  of  the 
stockade,  with  the  buildings  and  improvements  connected 
therewith ;  if  yea,  what,  in  your  judgment,  was  the  value  of 
the  same? 

Ans. — I  don't  think  the  whole  establishment  there  was 
worth  $10,000;  I  would  not  have  given  that  amount  for  it. 
That  is  about  as  near  as  I  can  answer  it. 

Ques.  6. — Was  this  fort,  and  other  buildings  connected 


iii 


1 


ti 


136 


I' 


therewith,  at  the  time  you  Avero  there,  in  your  judgment,  of 
any  considerable  value  for  any  purpose,  or  had  tlie  uses  for 
which  the  property  was  originally  built  passed  away  ? 

(Objected  to  as  leading  and  incompetent.) 

Ans. — They  were  not  of  any  value  whatever ;  they  had 
been  built  for  a  special  object,  and  that  object  had  passed 
away. 

Qucs.  7. — Was  this  post  vacated  by  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  at  the  time  you  were  there  ?  If  yea,  please  to  state, 
if  you  know,  what  was  the  cause  of  their  vacating  this  post. 

Ans. — They  did  vacate  it  while  I  was  there,  nearly  a  year 
after  the  charter,  under  which  they  held  possessory  rights,  had 
expired.  Their  right  to  remain  there  had  expired,  and  they 
went  away. 

Qiies.  8. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  character  of  the 
land  at  and  near  Vancouver  ?  If  yea,  please  to  describe  the 
same,  giving,  as  fully  as  you  can,  the  character  and  extent  of 
that  part,  if  any,  which  was  cultivated  and  enclosed,  and  the 
character  and  extent  of  that  part,  if  any,  which  was  wild  and 
unoccupied. 

Ans. — The  character  of  the  soil  there  at  Vancouverl  or  im- 
mediately around  it,  was  gravelly  and  poor.  There  were 
some  places  in  the  neighborhood  where  you  would  find  a  rich 
spot ;  but  in  the  bottom,  in  the  valley,  the  land  was  poor,  and 
I  have  seen  it  overflowed  by  the  Columbia  river  there  in  the 
spring  of  the  year — all  the  lower  part  under  water.  There 
was  a  strip  of  land  which  I  suppose  ran  up  about  three  miles 
up  the  river,  and  from  half  to  three-fourths  of  a  mile  wide, 
which  was  clear,  and  on  that  was  the  military  fort,  as  well  as 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  possessions  or  fort;  and  the 
United  States  Arsenal  was  there  too.  Then  immediately  back 
of  the  military  post — I  suppose  the  military  post  was  about 
half  a  mile,  that  is  where  the  woods  commenced,  what  we  call 
the  line  of  the  post — the  woods  were  very  dense  and  thick, 
and  continued  to  be  so.  There  were  roads  through  'hese 
woods,  at  distances  of  four  and  six  miles,  and  so  on ;  you 
would  come  to  small  prairies,  which  were  of  greater  or  less 
extent,  and  they  would  have  people  living  in  them — settlers, 


137 


111 


cultivating.  TIio  Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  some  few  fields 
around  their  enclosure  or  fort.  They  had  a  vegetable  garden, 
and  they  had  an  orchard  there — not  a  very  large  orchard — and 
some  few  fields  there. 

Ques.  9. — What  was  your  duty  while  stationed  at  Van- 
couver ? 

Aii8. — I  was  the  Adjutant  General  of  the  Department ;  all 
the  military  correspondence  of  the  Department  passed  through 
my  hands.     General  Harney  was  the  commanding  officer. 

Qiics.  10. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  career  and 
growth  of  the  town  of  Vancouver  while  you  were  there,  and 
of  the  condition  and  resources  of  the  country  west  of  the 
mountains  ?  If  yea,  what,  in  your  judgment,  is  the  probability 
of  building  up  at  Vancouver  a  large  commercial  town  ? 

Ans. — I  know  while  I  was  there  (I  was  probably  as  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  country  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  as 
any  one)  that  expeditions  were  sent  out  there,  and  the  reports 
all  came  to  me,  and  there  wore  many  eflforts  made  to  open  and 
facilitate  communication,  that  people  could  go  and  settle  the 
country  up  while  I  was  there ;  it  was  done  by  the  orders  of 
the  Government,  and  the  question  as  regards  the  eligibility 
of  a  position  on  that  river  was  considered  from  examinations 
made  around  the  river,  and  the  great  objection  to  having 
the  town  higher  up  than  the  mouth  of  the  Willamette  river 
was  a  bar  in  the  Columbia  river  above  there,  between  that  and 
Vancouver,  which  was  a  detriment  to  sea-steamers  coming 
in  when  the  river  was  low ;  and  that  gave  an  advantage  to  the 
station  at  Portland,  on  the  Willamette  river.  The  principal 
progress  of  the  town  of  Vancouver,  while  I  was  there,  was 
due  to  the  money  which  was  spent  by  the  soldiers — a  pretty 
large  garrison  was  kept  there ;  apart  from  the  increase  which 
was  made  by  the  trade  of  the  soldiers,  there  was  no  increase 
there.  I  don't  think  there  would  be  any  town  between  the 
Cascades  and  the  mouth  of  the  Willamette  river  of  any  con- 
siderable magnitude  ;  that  is,  there  is  no  advantages  there  for 
one ;  and  I  remember  that  there  was  a  survey  made  by  the 
engineer  of  the  river,  for  the  purpose  of  finding  out  the  advan- 
tages or  disadvantages  of  navigation,  and  the  report  was  un- 


1 


jiji 

.  I' 

ill 


i 


188 

favorable.  I  don't  know  now  whether  that  was  ordered  by 
General  Harney,  or  the  order  came  from  Washington,  but  it 
ought  to  be  in  the  records  of  the  Department. 

Cro88-Examination. 


£.f|« 


Qnea.  1. — Did  you  ever  make  any  particular  examination  of 
these  buildings,  within  the  stockade,  while  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  remained  in  possession,  and  were  not  your  examina- 
tions, if  any,  made  at  the  time  yoa  visited  the  Company's  of- 
ficers at  their  post  ? 

Ans. — I  have  examined  the  establishment  there  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  on  several  occasions,  sometimes  when 
I  would  go  in  there  to  make  a  purchase ;  sometimes  we  would 
make  purchases  in  there.  They  had  a  store  there,  and  I  would 
go  in  there  with  other  officers  and  friends,  and  we  would  walk 
around  and  look  through  ;  and  I  have  also  seen  it  when  I  have 
not  been  with  officers  of  the  Company — when  I  was  associated 
with  officers  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company ;  I  mean  to  say  I 
have  seen  it  both  with  them  and  without  them.  The  two 
places  are  very  close  together,  the  military  post  and  the  Hud- 
son's Bjiy  Company ;  I  mean  to  say  by  that  that  I  have  had 
as  good  facilities  of  seeing  it  as  I  have  had  of  seeing  the 
United  States  military  post. 

QuiS.  2. — Did  you  ever  examine  the  inside  of  the  store- 
houses or  the  other  buildings  with  a  view  to  ascertain  if  any 
portion  of  them  were  rotten  or  out  of  repair  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  I  have  noticed  that;  I  did  not  go  in  there 
for  the  purpose,  but  I  noticed  it  while  I  was  there.  I  never 
went  in  there  for  the  purpose  of  making  any  special  inspec- 
tion, but  as  if  I  would  come  in  here  and  see  the  ink  on  that 
wall;  but  I  didn't  come  in  there  for  that  purpose. 

Quea.  3. — State  what  particular  portion  of  any  building  or 
store-house  inside  of  the  stockade  was  rotten  or  out  of  repair. 

Ans. — I  would  really  say  that  they  were  all  out  of  repair, 
and  all  had  more  or  less  timber  decayed;  but  for  me  to  spe- 
cify any  particular  building  that  I  have  noticed,  particularly 
that  the  material  was  defective  throughout  the  row  of  build- 


189 


ings  on  the  cast ;  if  thoro  was  any  building  I  noticed  more 
than  the  other,  it  was  that  row  of  quarters  on  the  cast. 

Qhch.  4. — Did  not  the  appearance  of  dilapidation  of  these 
buildings  arise  greatly  from  their  want  of  paint — discoloration 
from  the  weather? 

Ann. — No;  I  don't  think  it  did  particularly. 

Quc8.  [). — When  did  this  strong  wind  occur,  that  you  speak 
of,  that  knocked  down  some  of  the  stockade?  Was  it  before 
or  after  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  left? 

Ans. — It  was  before.  I  will  tell  you  the  nearest  I  can  come 
to  it:  It  was  a  storm  that  occurred  on  the  coast,  and  there 
was  a  steamer  shipwrecked  there.  I  won't  be  certain  whether 
it  was  in  the  winter  of  1858  or  not.  There  was  a  very  violent 
storm,  and  a  steamer  coming  from  San  Francisco  was  wrecked 
on  the  coast. 

Ques.  6. — Were  these  buildings  outside  of  the  stockade  in 
a  worse  state  of  repair  than  those  inside  ? 

Ans. — Oh,  yes  ;  they  were  not  fit  to  be  inhabited  at  all. 

Ques.  7. — Was  there  not  a  store-house  or  salmon-house  out- 
side the  stockade,  used  by  the  military,  at  the  time  you  were 
there,  for  which  rent  was  paid  to  the  Company  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir  ;  I  would  say,  as  regards  the  salmon-house, 
it  was  under  rent  when  General  Harney  came  there. 

Ques.  8. — Was  not  an  ordnance  store,  on  [the]  outside  of  the 
Company's  buildings,  hired  by  the  military  authorities? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  the  particular  details;  I  remember 
the  salmon-house.  There  was  a  building  there  that  was  occu- 
pied by  the  ordnance,  for  which  rent  was  paid.  I  don't  know 
whether  the  rent  was  paid  or  not;  on  the  contrary,  in  regard 
to  the  ordnance  department,  all  that  sort  of  business  is  done 
direct  at  Washington. 

Ques.  9. — Was  there  not  a  store,  inside  the  stockade,  occu- 
pied by  the  military  authorities  for  storage? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Ques.  10. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  cost  ot  constructing 
buildings  in  any  way? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  I  have  been  a  quartermaster,  and  built 
posts,  bridges,  roads,  and  pretty  much  everything. 


il  • 


I 


I  ! 


ii 


I  j 


!l 


1!^ 


140 


Ques.  11. — Do  you  knovr  the  price  of  labor  for  meclianica, 
and  of  lumber,  at  the  time  you  speak  of,  about  the  town  of 
Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  now  what  it  was. 

Ques.  12. — Were  not  these  buildings  good  enough  for  the 
purposes  of  the  trade  which  the  Company  carried  on  at  that 
post,  and  were  they  not  capable  of  holding  their  stores,  and 
proof  from  the  weather? 

An8. — Well,  their  trade  as  far  as  I  saw,  didn't  amount 
to  anything;  I  could  not  answer  the  question.  If  you  give 
me  data,  then  I  can;  but  I  could  not  without  it. 

Ques.  13. — Is  not  your  opinion  of  the  value  of  these  build 
ings  based  on  the  fact  that,  in  your  own  opinion,  the  obj-^ct 
for  which  they  were  built  was  no  longer  of  importance  ? 

Ann. — No ;  for  I  don't  think  the  material  of  which  they 
were  composed  could  have  been  taken  down  and  used ;  and  I 
don't  think  there  could  be  as  much  economy  as  going  and  get- 
ting new  materials;  and  I  formed  that  opinion  from  the  fact 
of  having  been  at  several  military  posts  similarly  situated, 
and  that  very  question  came  up,  and  the  Government  would 
leave  the  property  rather  than  attempt  to  use  it  again,  because 
it  was  as  cheap  to  get  new  materials  and  build. 

Ques.  14. — Was  not,  then,  your  opinion  of  the  value  of 
these  buildings  made  up  with  a  view  to  taking  them  down  and 
using  the  materials  for  other  pnrposes? 

Ans. — No;  because  the  question  was  discussed  whether 
they  could  be  used  for  anything.  We  wove  in  want  of  build- 
ings and  stables  at  Fort  Vancouver  at  that  iime,  and  if  they 
could  have  been  used  for  stables  or  store- houses  to  advantage, 
they  would  have  been  used ;  but  it  was  decided  that  it  would 
be  a  disadvantage,  and  stables  and  store-houses  were  built 
there  after. 

Ques.  15. — Is  the  value  you  have  placed  on  them,  then,  the 
mere  value  of  the  materials  in  th<e  buildings  ? 

Ans. — That  was  just  about  the  value;  that  was  it;  if  I 
thought  of  buying  it  myself,  it  would  be  the  mere  value  of 
the  materials  in  the  buildings. 

Que8.  16. — Do  you  know  whether  this  was  the  opinion  of 


141 

the  Company,  that  their  charter  had  oxpiroJ,  or  an  opinion 
of  the  military  officer  of  the  post  ? 

Ans.'—l  believe  I  cannot  tell  now,  without  having  the 
records;  but  it  is  my  impression  that  the  question  was  referred 
to  Washington,  and  that  a  judicial  opinion  had  been  given  to 
General  Harney  on  the  subject. 

Qhcs.  17. — Do  you  know  from  whom  this  opinion  emanated? 

Ai}8. — I  do  not. 

Ques.  18. — Was  it  upon  this  opinion,  forwarded  from  Wash- 
ington, that  General  Harney  issued  the  order  informing  the 
Company  that  they  had  no  rights  ? 

(Objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Ans. — I  can  only  answer  that  by  saying  I  don't  know  what 
order  you  refer  to,  and  I  have  only  given  it  as  an  impression 
of  mine,  that  General  Harney  received  his  instructions  from 
Washington. 

Ques.  19. — Was  there  not  a  correspondence  between  Gen- 
eral Harney  and  the  officers  of  the  Company's  post,  with 
reference  to  the  lights  of  the  Company  at  Vancouver,  a  short 
time  before  thev  left  that  fort  ? 

Ans. — There  was  a  correspondence  on  several  occasions 
with  the  officers  of  the  Company,  but  on  different  subjects ; 
but  I  don't  remember  now  particularly  whether  there  was  any 
special  correspondence  in  reference  to  the  rights  of  the  Com- 
pany. Sometimes  a  correspondence  was  carried  on  with  the 
oijicers  at  Victoria,  and  sometimes  with  those  at  the  fort. 

Ques.  20. — When  you  speak  of  lands  being  gravelly  at  and 
near  Vancouver,  do  you  not  mean  to  say  that  the  gravel  is 
found  on  the  high  grounds  back  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  fort ; 
that  is,  where  your  buildings  were? 

Am. — Yes,  sir ;  there  is  gravel  there,  and  lunre  is  some 
gravel  ac  the  river  bottom. 

Ques.  21. — Do  you  not  know  that  there  was  a  bar  near  the 
mouth  of  the  Willamette  river,  and  another  bar,  called  the 
Swaa  Island  bar,  in  the  Willamette  river,  below  Portland, 
whicli  obstructed  the  approach  of  steamers  to  that  place  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir  ;  there  are  both  of  these  bars,  but  they  were 
deeper,  and  the  navigation  was  better,  as  it  was  decided  by 
the  survey  that  was  mi'de,  than  that  on  the  Columbia. 


iii 


U 


it 
'It 


* 


142 

Qucs.  22. — Is  this  information  which  you  have  given  with 
reference  to  the  bars  in  the  Columbia  and  the  Willamette  river 
derived  from  your  own  personal  knowledge,  or  from  what  you 
have  heard  as  to  the  report  of  this  survey  that  you  have 
spoken  of? 

Ans. — I  have  been  on  the  river  frequently,  both  ways ;  but 
I  have  never  sounded  ihe  sand-banks,  and  have  never  struck 
on  them.  The  opinion  I  am  giving  now  is  based  on  the  report 
of  the  survey  that  was  made  ;  the  report  passed  through  my 
office. 

Qiies.  23. — Do  you  know  where  this  report  is,  or  what  has 
become  of  it? 

Ans. — It  ought  to  be  with  the  records  of  the  Department, 
somewhere. 

Ques,  24. — Do  you  know  anything  of  the  country,  its  in- 
crease, and  the  change  in  the  course  of  trade  since  the  year 
1860,  of  your  own  personal  knowledge? 

Ans. — No ;  I  left  the  country  in  the  summer  of  1860,  and 
have  not  been  back  there  since. 

Ques.  25. — Has  your  attention  during  the  last  four  years 
been  at  all  directed  to  what  occurred  while  you  were  there, 
in  Oregon  or  Washington,  and  has  not  your  distinct  and  accu- 
rate recollection  of  these  matters  been  much  impaired  during 
the  last  four  years  ? 

Ans, — I  have  been  very  actively  employed  in  other  ways 
for  the  last  four  years,  and  as  regards  a  great-  many  of  the 
details  connected  with  the  service  in  Oregon  while  I  was 
there,  I  don't  remember  them ;  but  my  opinions,  as  they  were 
formed,  of  the  transaction  of  certain  facts,  I  think  they  are 
just  as  good  now  as  they  were  then. 

Ques.  26. — liook  at  this  letter,  now  shown  you,  dated  March 
3d,  18G0,  and  to  which  your  signature  is  attached  as  Acting 
Assistant  Adjutant  General,  and  now  in  evidence  in  this  case, 
and  state,  if  you  can,  whether  it  was  written  before  or  after 
the  communication  from  Washington,  which  you  have  spoken 
of? 

(Objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Ans. — This  letter  appears  to  be  an  answer  to  a  letter  re- 


143 

ceived  from  Mr.  Wack,  the  agent  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany at  Fort  Vancouver.  I  stated  that  it  was  an  impression 
of  mine  that  General  Harney  had  received  instructions  from 
Washington  on  the  subject,  but  I  have  nothing  positive  to 
show  that  he  did  so,  and  this  letter  in  question  is  not  an  order, 
but  simply  a  reply  to  a  letter  from  Mr.  Wack. 

Ques.  27. — Do  you  recollect  anything  about  a  purchase 
made  by  the  commanding  officer  of  the  Department,  General 
Harney,  of  land  near  the  military  post,  and  on  the  lands 
claimed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  near  Vancouver? 

Ans. — No ;  I  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  any  purchase. 

QucB.  28. — Do  you  know  of  any  land  occupied  by  General 
Harney,  near  the  military  post  of  Vancouver,  on  land  claimed 
by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  know  of  the  General  building  a  house  about  a  mile 
up  the  river,  I  think,  on  the  bluff;  but  the  terms  on  which  he 
did  I  don't  know  anything  of. 

A.  Pleasokton, 
Bvt.  Brig.  Gen  U.  S.  A. 

Sworn  to  before  me  this  13th  day  of  July,  A.  D.  1866. 

John  A.  O-^born, 
U.  8.  Com.  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


■  % 


I 

.1 
li 

I 

i 
,  I- 


ting 
:aso, 
ifter 
»ken 


Southern  District  of  New  York,  1 
Ciii/  of  New  York.  j 

I,  John  A.  Osborn,  United  States  Commissioner,  do  hereby 
certify  that  the  foregoing  deposition  of  Alfred  Pleasonton, 
a  witness  produced  by  and  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  in 
the  matter  of  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
against  the  same,  now  pending  before  the  British  and  Ameri- 
can Joint  Commission  for  the  final  settlement  thereof,  was 
taken  before  me,  at  my  office  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and 
reduced  to  writing,  under  my  direction,  on  the  13th  day  of 
July,  1866. 


re- 


i 


M 


144 

I  further  certify  that  before  this  examination  I  adminis- 
tered to  said  witness  the  following  oath  : 

"  You  swear  that  the  evidence  you  shall  give  in  the  matter 
of  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the 
United  States  of  America  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth, 
and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God." 

After  the  same  was  reduced  to  writing,  the  deposition  of 
said  witness  was  carefully  read  to  and  then  signed  by  him. 

I  further  certify  that  Eben  F.  Stone,  Esq.,  attoi'ney  for 
the  United  States,  and  Edward  Lander,  Esq.,  attorney  for 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  were  personally  present  during 
the  examination  and  cross-examination  of  said  witness. 

And  I  do  further  certify  that  I  am  not  of  counsel,  nor 
attorney  for  either  of  the  parties  in  the  said  deposition  and 
caption  named,  nor  in  any  way  interested  in  the  event  of  the 
cause  named  in  said  caption. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal 
[l.  s.]     this  30th  day  of  July,  A.  D.  1866. 

John  A.  Osborn, 
U.  S.  Com'r  Southern  Dist.  of  Neiv  York. 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION 


ON  TEE 


HUDSON'S  BAY  AND  PUGET'S  SOUND  AGRICUL- 
TURAL  COMPANIES'  CLAIMS. 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay    Company 
against  the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  J.  W.  Perit  Muntington. 

Interrogatories  propounded  by  Caleb  Gushing^  in  behalf  of  the 

United  States. 

Testimony  of  J.  W.  Perit  Huntington. 

Ques.  1. — Please  to  state  your  name  ia  full,  your  present 
place  of  abode,  and  your  official  station,  if  any. 

Ans. — My  name  is  J.  W.  Perit  Huntington ;  I  reside  at 
Salem,  Oregon ;  I  am  Superintendent  of  Indian  Affairs  for  the 
State  of  Oregon. 

Ques.  2. — Have  you  any  interest,  direct  or  indirect,  in  the 
claim  preferred  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the 
United  States? 

Ans. — None  whatever, 

Ques.  3. — lu  what  year  did  you  first  go  to  Oregon  ? 

Ans. — In  the  year  1849. 

Ques.  4. — Have  you  or  not  resided  there  continuously  from 
that  time  to  the  present  ? 

Ans. — I  have  resided  there  contir^uously  from  that  date  to 
the  present  time. 

Ques.  5. — In  what  part  of  Oregon  did  you  reside  during 
the  early  part  of  your  residence  there  ? 

Ans. — From  1849  to  1852,  I  lived  in  the  Umpqua  Valley ; 
In  1862,  I  lived  in  Walla-Walla,  Washington  Territory  j  and 
my  present  residence  is  at  Salem. 
10  H 


I*; 


i' 


146 


i- »| 


Ques.  6. — How  long  have  you  held  the  office  of  Superin- 
tendent of  Indian  Affairs? 

Ans. — Since  the  1st  of  April,  18G3. 

Ques.  7. — Prior  to  your  holding  the  office  of  Superintendent 
of  Indian  Affairs,  had  you  held  any,  and  if  so,  what  office  or 
offices  in  Oregon  ? 

Ans. — I  had  been  county  clerk  of  Umpqua  county  for  two 
years,  the  years  1852  and  1853;  and  I  was  a  member  of  the 
Oregon  Legislature  in  1860. 

Ques.  8.— What  were  your  professional  pursuits  or  occupa- 
tion during  your  residence  in  the  valley  of  the  Umpqua? 

Ans. — My  chief  occupation  was  surveying ;  farming  was  an 
incidental  occupation  also. 

Ques.  9. — Whether  or  not  did  your  business  as  surveyor 
lead  you  into  opportunities  of  knowledge  in  reference  to  the 
geography  and  other  matters  in  the  valley  of  the  Umpqua  ? 

Ans. — It  did;  my  knowledge  of  the  Umpqua,  both  as  to  its 
geography  and  its  population  in  its  early  days,  is  very  inti- 
mate— very  familiar  indeed. 

Ques.  10. — Whether  or  not  have  you  had  any  personal  know- 
ledge and  observation  of  the  post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany on  the  Umpqua  ? 

Ans. — I  had ;  I  was  a  guest  of  Mr.  Gagnior,  who  was  the 
agent  in  charge  of  the  fort  in  the  spring  of  1850,  for  several 
days,  and  I  have  frequently  stopped  there  subsequently. 

Ques.  11. — Please  to  state  where  the  post  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  on  the  Umpqua  is  situated,  relatively  to  the 
California  trail. 

Ans. — It  is  between  fifteen  and  twenty  miles  west  of  the 
trail,  and  separated  from  it  by  a  very  high  and  rugged  range 
of  mountains. 

Ques.  12. — Please  to  state  whether  or  not  that  post  has  any 
topographical  connection  or  otherwise  with  the  California 
trail. 

Ans. — It  has  none  whatever. 

Ques.  13. — How  far  by  the  river  is  that  post  from  the 
ocean  ? 


147 


Ans. — I  do  not  know  accurately ;  I  think  between  forty- 
five  and  fifty-five  miles. 

Qucs.  14. — From  your  personal  knowledge  or  observation 
of  that  post,  what  were  the  uses  and  purposes  of  its  occupa- 
tion ? 

Atis. — It  was  a  post  established  for  fur-trading  purposes, 
and  especially  for  trading  in  sea-otter  skins,  a  very  valuable 
class  of  furs,  and  only  to  be  obtained  in  a  few  localities  along 
the  coast.  Its  trade  was  never  extensive,  and  although  not 
confined  strictly  to  the  sea-otter  skins,  it  was  mainly  carried 
on  with  the  view  of  collecting  them. 

Ques.  15. — Wliat  was  the  condition  of  this  trade  in  1850, 
relatively  to  the  amount  of  its  prosecution? 

Alls. — It  had  diminished  very  much  from  what  it  had  been 
previously ;  the  Company  had  only  one  white  man  there  at 
that  time,  and  one  half-breed,  and  then  there  were  one  or  two 
Indians  employed  about  the  post.  They  made,  in  1849  and 
1850  and  in  1851,  a  little  expedition  down  to  Vancouver,  with 
pack-horses,  for  goods,  and  to  take  doAvn  fur^i  the  number  of 
packs,  I  think,  in  neither  instance  exceeded  twenty. 

Ques,  16. — What  buildings  had  the  Company  there,  in  1850, 
when  you  first  came  to  the  knowledge  of  them? 

Ans. — They  had  a  dwelling-house,  a  barn,  and  a  store- 
house, and  one  other  building,  the  purpose  of  which  I  do  not 
know.  Those  were  all  staRding  in  a  square,  and  enclosed  by 
pickets. 

Qucs.  17. — In  your  judgment,  how  many  acres  of  land  were 
there  at  this  post  under  enclosure  o:?  cultivation,  either  or 
both  ? 

Ans. — Between  100  and  150  acres. 

Ques.  18. — Please  to  state,  whether  or  not,  as  surveyor  or 
as  farmer,  you  have  had  practice  and  occasion  to  judge  of  the 
value  of  buildings  and  lands  in  the  valley  of  the  Umpqua. 

Ans. — I  have  had  a  very  good  opportunity  to  acquire  that 
knowledge. 

Ques.  19. — What,  in  your  opinion,  in  1850,  was  the  value 
in  money  of  the  buildings  of  the  Company  at  the  post  of 
Umpqua? 


1  i 
ill,. 

I  ; 

If 


J.,    I. 

f  «   1: 


I 


ii 


\^ 


148 

Ans. — Do  you  mean  the  cost  of  putting  up,  or 

Ques.  20. — First,  the  cost  of  putting  up,  and  then  the  ac- 
tual value  as  they  stood,  Avhen  you  visited  thera. 

Ans. — I  should  t^ink  the  first  cost  of  these  buildings,  with 
the  stockades  around  them,  was  $1,000.  When  I  saw  them, 
they  were  very  much  dilapidated,  and  their  value  Avas  very 
small ;  they  were  worth  nothing  to  any  one  else  except  the 
Company ;  they  were  very  much  decayed,  and  going  to  ruin 
pretty  fast. 

Que8.  21. — State,  if  you  please,  provided  you  know,  what 
became  of  those  buildings. 

Ans. — They  were  burned  in  1853 — either  1853  or  1854 — I 
am  not  sure  which.  They  were  burned  after  they  had  been 
leased  by  the  Company  to  Colonel  Chapman,  an  American 
citizen. 

Ques.  22. — By  whom  is  the  land,  if  you  know,  now  occu- 
pied? 

Ans. — It  is  held  by  Henry  Beckly  and  John  Smith,  in  part- 
nership, both  Ameriqan  citizens. 

Ques.  23. — State,  if  you  know,  whether  they  did  or  did  not 
enter  on  the  land  by  license  of  the  Company. 

Ans. — No,  sir ;  they  did  not ;  they  derived  the  land  by 
purchase. 

Ques.  24. — From  whom,  if  you  know? 

Ans. — From  one  Robert  Hutchinson,  who  obtained  it  from 
Chapman,  who  was  the  lessee  originally  from  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company. 

Ques.  25. — You  have  stated  that  you  resided  some  time  at 
Walla-Walla. 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  one  year — one  season. 

Ques.  26. — Please  state  whether,  by  Walla- Walla,  you  mean 
the  United  States  fort  of  Walla-Walla,  or  the  old  establish- 
ment, usually  known  as  the  Fort  of  Nez  Percys. 

Ans. — I  referred  to  neither  one ;  I  referred  to  the  valley  of 
the  Walla-Walla.  The  place  at  which  I  stopped  was  about 
thirty  miles  southeast  of  the  old  fort  Nez  Perces,  sometimes 
^sailed  Walla- Walla. 


149 

Ques.  27. — Have  you  any  personal  knowledge  of  the  condi- 
tion of  the  old  fort  of  Nez  Perces. 

Av8. — I  have  not,  prior  to  1862 ;  at  that  time  it  was  very 
much  dilapidated,  in  fact  almost  entirely  destroyed;  my  own 
personal  knowledge  of  it  is  the  extent  of  it. 

Ques.  28. — State,  if  you  please,  from  what  you  saw,  what 
buildings,  if  any,  had  constituted  the  structures  of  that  post. 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  that  I  can  state  with  any  accuracy 
what  buildings  constituted  the  post.  A  portion  of  them  had 
been  destroyed  in  1862,  and  all  were  very  much  dilapidated. 
There  was  an  enclosure,  and  an  adobe  wall,  and  some  build- 
ings inside  of  it,  but  their  number  or  size  I  could  not  give. 

Ques.  29. — Whether  or  not  any  land  appeared  to  have  been 
enclosed  at  that  post? 

Ans. — I  do  not  think  any  was  enclosed  there ;  they  had  a 
farm  twenty  miles  back  in  the  Walla- Walla  Valley,  twenty 
miles  south,  which  was  attached  to  the  post. 

Ques.  30. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  farm  of  which 
you  speak  ? 

Ana. — I  have  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  it. 

Que8.  31. — Please  to  describe  the  quantity  of  enclosed  land 
at  that  farm.  "  -, 

Ans. — I  cannot  give  it  accurately,  having  never  mei'.sured 
it ;  but  I  should  estimate  i4;  at  from  twenty  to  thirty  acres. 

Ques.  32. — What  was  the  quality  and  nature  of  the  laud 
around  that  farm? 

Ans. — There  is  a  valley  there  containing  1,000,  or  perhapa 
2,000  acres  of  excellent  land.  The  land  outside  of  that  is 
high  land,  affording  some  grass,  but  not  fit  for  cultivation. 

Ques.  33. — What,  in  your  judgment,  at  the  time  you  saw 
it,  was  the  value  of  that  enclosed  land? 


Ans. — $8  or  $10  dollars  an  acre. 

Ques.  34. — Were  there  any  buildings  on  it;  and  if  so,  what? 

Ans. — None,  sir. 

Ques.  35. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  locality  of  the 
valley  of  the  Walla- Walla,  called  Wallula,  and  the  landing- 
place  there? 

Ans. — I  am. 


'.u 


\\ 


\    \ 


1 

'i 
r 


1^ 


150 


it 


i 


I 

m 
I 

m 

m 


Quen.  36. — Plcaso  to  describe  the  uses  of  that  landing- 
place. 

Ans. — "VVallula  is  the  Indian  name  of  the  old  buildings, 
Nez  Pcrc&s  or  Walla-Walla ;  it  is  at  the  mouth  of  the  Walla- 
Walla  river,  and  has  a  high  sand-point  and  beach  running 
down  to  the  river,  making  a  favorable  steamboat  landing. 
The  land  is  a  drifting  sand  desert,  producing  no  vegetation, 
and  not  capable  of  producing  any,  except  some  very  small 
narrow  bottoms,  along  the  Walla-Walla  creek  or  river,  which 
overflows  frequently,  and  cannot  be  cultivated  on  that  account ; 
it  produces  some  grazing,  however. 

Ques.  37. — State,  if  you  know,  whether  or  not  the  landing 
at  Wallula  is  now  a  place  of  landing  at  that  region,  or  whether 
there  is  or  not  some  other  place  of  landing  preferred  to  it; 
and  if  so,  the  name  of  that  place. 

Ans. — The  landing  at  Umatilla  has  superseded  that  at  Wal- 
lula ;  there  are  now  a  hundred  tons  of  freight  landed  at  Uma- 
tilla, where  there  is  one  ton  landed  at  Wallula. 

Ques.  38. — What  causes  have  led  to  the  comparative  aban- 
donment of  Wallula,  and  the  increased  use  of  Umatilla? 

Ans. — Umatilla  has  been  found  to  be  a  more  convenient 
entrepot  for  the  traffic  which  goes  towards  Boise  and  Idaho. 
Wallula  is  still  used,  and  always  will  be  for  the  traffic  which 
goes  to  Walla- Walla  Valley ;  but  that  is  but  a  small  part  of 
the  trade  of  that  country. 

Ques.  39. — State,  if  you  know,  whether  or  not  any  act  or 
interference  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  Government  has 
procured  the  relative  abandonment  of  Wal'a- Walla  as  a  land- 
ing-place ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  that  any  has ;  on  the  contrary,  I 
think  that  the  fact  that  quartermasters  have  used  it  as  a 
landing-place  for  the  supplies  that  are  taken  to  Fort  Walla- 
Walla,  in  the  interior,  has  done  much  to  keep  the  place  up 
longer  than  it  would  otherwise  have  mantained  itself.  The 
village  of  Wallula  is  a  commercial  rival  of  Umatilla  now,  and 
there  is,  of  coarse,  the  usual  strife  between  two  such  places 
of  precedence.     The  last  two  or  three   years  Umatilla  ht.8 


151 

gone  very  much  ahead  of  Wallula,  and  solely  on  account  of 
its  natural  advantages. 

Ques.  40. — Whether,  so  far  as  you  can  have  observed,  what 
proportion,  if  any,  of  the  traffic  of  Wallula  is  dependent  upon 
the  location  of  the  United  States  fort  at  Walla- Walla,  and  is 
created  by  that  ? 

Ans. — Fully  one-half,  in  my  judgment. 

Qiics.  41. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  an  enclosure,  or 
appearance  of  an  enclosure,  having  ever  existed,  of  a  mile 
square,  in  and  around  Fort  Ncz  Feces? 

Ans. — I  have  not ;  I  never  heard  of  any  such  enclosure ; 
I  do  not  think  any  such  possible,  because,  in  order  to  make 
such  a  one,  the  enclosure  must  necessarily  cross  the  river 
Walla-Walla  twice,  and  unless  constructed  very  substantially, 
it  would  be  removed  every  year  by  the  June  freshets. 

Que8.  42. — What  is  the  quality  of  the  land  or  soil  immedi- 
ately surrounding  the  fort  of  Nez  Perces  ? 

Ans. — It  is  a  desert  of  drifting  sand,  totally  incapable  of 
producing  any  crop  or  grass,  with  the  exception  of  narr<j»w 
bottoms  around  the  Walla-Walla  river  or  creek,  which  are 
tolerable  fertile,  and  could  be  cultivated,  if  they  were  not 
subject  to  overflow.  The  whole  tract  is  utterly  valueless  for 
agricultural  purposes. 

Ques.  43. — In  the  hills  back  of  the  immediate  site  of  the 
fort  and  its  surroundings,  have  you  or  not  ever  noticed  any 
cattle  or  horses  pastured  ? 

Ana. — I  have  frequently. 

Ques.  44. — To  whom,  if  you  know,  did  they  belong  ? 

Am. — They  belonged  to  settlers,  American  citizens  there. 

Ques.  45. — Have  you  or  not  ever  noticed  any  Indians  pas- 
turing their  horses  there? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  great  numbers  of  them. 

Ques.  46. — What  bands  of  Indians? 

Ans. — The  Cayuses,  Walla- Wallas,  and  Umatillas. 

Cross- Examined  hy  Edward  Lander,  in  behalf  of  the  Hudson's 

Bay  Company. 

Ques.  1. — What  is  the  usual  price  of  sea-otter  skins  ? 


'« 


■'   I, 


152 


ifj; 

Ir' 


Ml 


fVn 


m 


Ans. — I  beliovo  tlioir  usual  value  in  Portland  has  been  040 
to  $80  each. 

Qucs.  2. — I  will  ask  you,  is  there  a  trail  connecting  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  post  at  Umpqua  with  the  main-trail,  from  which 
you  say  it  is  separated  by  mountains? 

Ana. — Yes,  sir ;  there  is  now  a  wagon-road  constructed,  but 
there  was  not  at  that  period;  there  was  a  trail  which  passed 
over  that  range  of  mountains  ;  it  was  used  by  the  Company  in 
passing  from  the  fort  down  to  Vancouver. 

Ques.  3. — You  have  spoken  of  the  value  of  these  skins.  I 
will  ask  you  what  the  value  of  lumber  was,  at  Portland,  per 
thousand,  from  the  fall  of  1849  to  the  spring  of  1850,  if  you 
know  ? 

Ans. — Well,  I  think  that  the  average  price  for  it  :.t  that 
time  was  $100  per  thousand;  it  was  very  high,  I  remember. 

Ques.  4. — Is  that  the  value  you  placed  upon  these  buildings 
at  the  time  you  saw  them  in  1850? 

Ann. — I  valued  them,  in  the  first  place,  by  estimating  the 
^ost  of  putting  up  such  buildings  at  that  time. 

Ques.  5.— In  1850  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir  ;  in  the  spring  of  1850 ;  and  then  I  stated 
in  my  former  answer  that  their  value  at  that  time  was  very 
small,  because  they  were  unsuitable  for  other  uses  than  those 
the  Company  had  for  them,  and  because  they  were  very  much 
decayed  and  dilapidated. 

Ques.  6. — I  will  ask  you  what  were  these  buildings  made  of? 

Ans. — They  were  made  of  logs — hewn  logs. 

Ques.  7. — And  whether  they  were  shingled  or  not  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  what  the  roofs  were  constructed 
of;  thoy  were  very  rotten,  and  moss-grown,  and  leaky. 

Ques.  8. — What  was  the  price  of  square  timber,  at  that 
time,  in  Portland,  Oregon  ?  But  first,  was  the  timber  used  in 
these  buildings  square  on  four  sides,  or  only  on  two?        i 

Ans. — I  think  some  of  them  were  square  on  four  sides,  and 
some  two. 

Ques.  9. — What  was  the  price  of  square  timber,  at  that  time, 
in  Portland,  Oregon? 

(Mr.  Cushing. — I  object  to  that  question :  first,  as  intro- 


153 

ducing  now  matter  and  as  not  being  in  the  natnrc  of  cross- 
oxaminatioii ;  and  secondly,  as  assuming  that  the  logs  at 
Umpqua  were  what  is  called  square  timber.) 

Ques.  10. — What  was  the  price  of  square  timber  at  Port- 
land? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know. 

Ques.  11. — I  will  ask  you  again,  what  was  the  price  of  square 
timber  in  any  portion  of  Oregon,  with  which  you  were  ac- 
quainted, at  that  time? 

(Mr.  Gushing  objected  to  this  question  as  not  being  in  the 
nature  of  cross-examination,  and  as  introductory  of  new  mat- 
ter not  pertinent  to  the  present  inquiry.) 

(Mr.  Lander. — I  must  say  I  do  not  see  how  that  is ;  he  has 
sworn  that  part  of  them  were  square  timber.  What  was  the 
price  of  timber,  at  that  time,  in  any  part  of  Oregon  with 
which  you  were  acquainted?) 

Ana. — I  know  of  square  timber  having  been  gotten  <>ut  at 
six  cents  per  foot,  running  measure,  in  the  Umpqua  Valley. 

(^/vca.  12. — Are  you  aware  of  any  settlers  at  the  valley  of 
the  bmpqua  before  you  arrived  there  in  1849  ? 

Ana. — There  were  six  men  and  some  families. 

Ques.  13. — How  long  had  they  been  in  the  valley  at  the 
time  of  your  arrival? 

Ans. — The  first  settler  went  there  in  1848,  tlj  others  had 
gone  there  in  the  early  part  of  1849. 

Ques.  14. — Is  your  estimate  of  the  cost  of  the  erection  of 
those  buildings  based  upon  the  price  of  labor  and  the  value 
of  material  in  the  year  1850,  or  not  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir  ;  it  is  based  upon  the  price  of  labor  at  that 
date ;  the  value  of  timber  was  nothing. 

Ques.  15. — The  value  of  material  at  that  date  was  simply 
the  value  of  labor  bestowed  upon  it.     Is  that  so  ? 

Ans, — I  mean  to  say  that  these  buildings  could  have  been 
erected  for  the  money  I  name,  at  that  time. 

Ques.  16. — I  will  ask  you  this  question  :  When  you  speak 
of  material  which  is  of  no  value,  do  you  mean  the  material 
standing  as  timber  in  the  wood? 


i 


154 


Ans. — Yes,  sir;  there  was  no  other  material  in  the  con- 
struction— no  iron. 

Ques.  17. — How  many  laborers  were  there  in  the  valley  of 
the  Umpqua  capable  of  putting  up  this  building  in  the  year 
1850  ? 

Ans. — Tliere  were  some  hundrer'^s  who  settled  there  that 
summer ;  I  do  not  know  the  number.  There  was  a  great  num- 
ber of  people  passing  back  and  forth  through  the  valley  who 
were  al\\\\ys  ready  to  work  if  we  wanted  to  hire  them. 

Ques.  18. — What  was  the  price  of  labor  per  month  in  the 
valley  in  that  year  ;  in  the  summer  of  1850? 

Ans.—UO  to  $60,  with  board. 

Ques.  10. — Do  you  know  the  size  of  tliese  buildings? 

Ans. — I  do  not;  I  could  not  give  it  accurately. 

Ques  20. — I  will  ask  you  if  the  dwelling-house  was  not  40 
by  30  feet  ? 

An.s. — My  impression  would  be,  from  recollection  simply, 
and  of  course  rather  vague,  that  it  was  forty  feet  long,  and 
less  than  thirty  feet  wide. 

Ques.  21. — Was  not  the  barn  45  by  30  feet  ? 

Ans. — I  should  think,  probably  that  size. 

Ques.  22. — Was  not  the  stockade  ninety  feet  square  by 
twelve  feet  high  ? 

Alls. — Yes,  it  might  have  been. 

Ques.  23. — Was  not  the  store  or  range  of  stores  40  feet  by 
20? 

Ans. — Perhaps  they  were  that  size. 

Ques.  24. — And  did  not  all  these  buildings  average  in  height 
from  twenty  to  thirty  feet  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir ;  they  did  not  average  in  height  more  than 
eight  feet  to  the  eaves ;  thijy  were  verv  low. 

Ques.  25. — Was  not  the  barn  over  eight  feet  high  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  think  it  was  over  eight  or  ten  feet. 

Ques.  20. — Was  this  barn  lower  in  height  than  the  usual 
log  barns  of  Oregon,  since  that  time  ? 


Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  the  build 


all 


Ques.  27.— What  is  the 


rery 


lo 


w. 


^s  were 
present  value  of  land  in  the  Ump- 


Hi 


155 

qua  A^illcy  per  acre,  where  the  title  of  land  has  been  con- 
firmed ? 

Av}<. — The  value  of  good  agricultural  land  theiMi,  unim- 
proved, is  from  $2  to  $4  an  acre. 

Qufs.  28. — Then  I  will  ask  the  question  entirely.  What  is 
the  value  of  good  alluvial  bottom-land,  that  has  been  improved, 
per  acre  ? 

Aim, — Do  you  mean,  including  the  improvements? 

Qncn.  20. — I  mean  by  improvements,  fence  and  plough; 
land  that  is  not  in  a  natural  state. 

Avii. — The  answer  must  depend  on  the  character  and  ex- 
tent of  the  improvements. 

Qkcs.  :50. — I  will  ask  it  again:  What  is  the  .value  of  culti- 
vated alluvial  bottom-land  per  acre? 

A7i8. — Do  ycu  desire  me  to  include  the  price  of  improve- 
ments— the  house  ? 

Ques.  31. — I  cannot  tell  whether  there  is  a  house  or  not. 

Ans. — I  cannot  answer  the  question,  unless  you  can  tell 
me  whether  there  is  a  house  on  it  or  not. 

Ques.  32. — I  have  asked  you  the  value  of  cultivated  alluvial 
bottom-land. 

Ans. — The  value  of  unimproved  is  as  I  havo  stated ;  the 
value  of  improved  or  cultivated  land  would  be  enhanced  pre- 
cisely by  the  value  of  the  permanent  improvements  put  upon 
it,  which  may  be  small  or  great;  in  fact,  farms  are  ordinarily 
sold — they  are  now — M-ith  dwellings,  and  large  part  of  the 
land  fences,  for  from  $3  to  $5  an  acre. 

Ques.  33. — In  the  Umpqua  Valley? 

Ans. — In  the  Umpqua  Valley. 

Ques.  34. — At  what  time,  and  for  how  long,  were  you  in  the 
Walla-Walla  Valley? 

Ans. — I  was  there  in  18C2,  from  spring  until  October. 

Ques.  35. — Are  all  those  answers  that  you  have  made  to 
questions,  put  to  you  with  reference  to  Wallula  and  Walla- 
Walla  Valley  and  landing,  based  upon  knowledge  acquired  at 
that  time? 

Ans. — They  are  all  based  upon  knowledge  acquired  at  that 
time  or  subsequently. 


I'     :i 


!il 


Mn,  [! 


i 


, 


156 

Ques.  36. — Have  you  ever  been  in  the  Walla-Wallt^  Valley 
subsequently  ? 

Ans. — Every  season  since ;  I  was  there  this  year,  in  May. 

Ques.  37. — Do  you  own  land,  or  have  you  been  farming  in 
the  Walla-Walla  "''alley  ? 

Ans. — I  have  never  owned  any  land  there,  or  farmed  there; 
I  have  kept  cattle  and  sheep  there  in  1862  and  1863. 

Ques.  38. — At  the  time  you  kept  stock  in  the  valley,  did 
you  pay  for  it ;  or  were  your  stock  ranging  on  the  public 
lands  ? 

Ans. — They  were  ranging  on  the  public  lands ;  nobody 
thought  of  paying  for  grass. 

Ques.  39. — Are  not  those  parts  of  the  valley  of  the  Walla- 
Walla  where  the  alluvial  land  is  found  of  much  greater  value 
than  the  surrounding  uplands? 

Ans. — They  are. 

Ques.  40. — Have  you  ever  purchased  or  sold  any  of  the 
alluvial  lands  of  the  valley  of  the  Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — I  never  have. 

Ques.  41. — Are  there  any  titles  at  present  given  to  the 
United  States  Government  in  the  valley  of  the  Walla-Walla, 
so  that  the  value  of  lands  with  good  titles  can  be  ascertained? 

(Mr.  Gushing  objected  to  this  question,  inasmuch  as  this 
witness  is  not  the  proper  person  to  prove  the  United  States 
grants  of  lands,  if  any,  having  no  personal  or  official  know- 
ledge of  that  matter.) 

(Witness. — I  do  not  know  whether  the  United  States  have 
issued  patents  of  lands  or  not.) 

Ques,  42. — I  will  ask  you  this  :  Is  not  the  sale  of  lands  in 
the  valley  of  the  Walla-Walla  a  mere  delivery  of  possession 
between  the  purchaser  and  buyer  ? 

(Mr.  Gushing  objected  to  this  question  as  incompetent.) 

(Witness. — I  think  it  is  not ;  I  think  that  lands  are  usually 
sold  upon  a  land-office  certificate  ;  that  where  the  proper  proof 
of  residence  has  been  made  which  entitles  the  resident  to 
possession  ;  they  are  sometimes  sold  in  that  way,  and  some- 
times mere  possession.) 

Int.  43. — Is  the  value  of  $8  or  ^10  per  acre,  which  you  place 


up( 
in 
ion 
of 


mil 


157 


il 


upon  these  twenty  acres  of  enclosed  land  at  the  Old  Farm 
in  the  Walla-Walla,  the  value  put  upon  it,  in  your  own  opin- 
ion, on  knowledge  derived  from  your  observation  of  the  sale 
of  other  lands? 

Ans. — From  my  observation  of  the  sale  of  lands  in   that 
district. 

Int.  44. — How  near  is  this  to  the  farm  formerly  owned  by 
Mr.  Davis,  and  afterwards  by  Ruckell  and  Thomas? 

Ans. '-  l  do  not  know  accurately  ;  I  should  think  five  or  six 
miles. 

Int.  45. — How  does  this  enclosed  land  that  you  have  spoken 
of  compare  in  value  with  that  of  the  Davis  farm  ? 

Ans. — It  is  less  valuable. 

Int.  4G. — To  what  extent  is  it  less  valuable  ? 

Ans. — It  is  not  as  good  land;  the  Davis  farm  is  the  choice 
piece  of  land  in  the  Walla-Walla  Valley,  and  indeed  of  all 
Eastern  Oregon  ;  and  it  is  so  much  further  away  from  market 
than  the  Davis  farm  as  to  make  its  products  less  valuable. 

Int.  47. — Which  is  the  nearest,  at  the  present  time,  to  the 
town  of  Walla- Walla  ? 

Ans. — The  Davis  farm  ;  to  go  from  the  town  of  Walla-Walla 
you  would  pass  right  by  the  Davis  farm. 

Int.  48. — What  is  the  value  of  the  Davis  farm  per  acre?  Or, 
if  you  know,  state  what  was  given  for  it. 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  what  was  given  for  it.  I  should  think 
the  Davis  farm,  in  its  improved  condition,  is  worth  from  ^25 
to  $30  per  acre ;  it  would  be  $10,000  for  the  half  section  ;  if 
it  is  a  half  section,  $10,000 ;  or  if  a  quarter  of  a  section, 
$5,000. 

Int.  49. — What,  if  you  know,  is  the  present  population  of 
the  valley  of  the  Walla- Walla  and  the  town  of  Walla- Walla  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  give  either.  ^ 

Int.  50. — Is  not  the  town  of  Walla-Walla  a  place  of  consid- 
erable trade  and  importance  for  that  section  of  country  at 
which  supplies  are  purchased  for  the  mines? 

Ans. — It  is. 

Int.  51. — Is  there  not  a  lino  of  stages  running  from  Walla- 


III 


158 


W  ' 


Walla  acro^js  the  Blue  Mountains  to  Boise  and  the  mining 
regions? 

A718. — Tlioro  is  a  line  of  stages  running  from  Wallula  to 
Walla-Walhv,  and  another  from  Walla-Walla  to  Boise  City, 
across  tlie  Blue  Mountains. 

Int.  1)2. — How  many  soldiers  were  there  stationed  in  the 
United  States  fort  of  Walla-Walla,  during  the  time  you  re- 
sided there? 

Ans. — When  I  first  went  there,  there  were  six  companies  ; 
all  but  two  companies  were  sent  out  on  the  plains  that  sum- 
mer, and,  I  tliink,  returned  there  in  the  winter. 

Int.  58. — Are  not  the  supplies  for  these  troops,  of  beef  and 
flour,  necessary  to  their  subsistence,  produced  in  the  valley  of 
the  Walhi-Walla  ? 

Ans. — They  are;  all  of  them. 

Int.  54. — Have  you  any  idea  of  the  amount  of  freight  de- 
livered at  Wallula,  for  the  use  of  the  military  at  the  fort  of 
Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — I  have  not;  but  it  is  very  large. 

I/it.  55. — Does  not  the  town  of  Wallula  possess  at  least 
1,000  inhabitants? 

Ans. — I  think  it  docs  ;  more  than  that. 

Int.  50. — Is  there  not  now  in  the  valley  of  the  Walla- Walla, 
including  the  town  population,  5,000  inhabitants? 

Ana. — I  should  think  5,000  a  very  high  estimate,  but  it  may 
come  up  to  that. 

//(/.  57. — Are  there  not,  to  the  east  of  Wallula,  the  mining 
towns  of  Orofino,  Florence,  and  Elk  City,  whose  supplies  pass 
through  the  town  of  Wallula,  and  are  landed  at  Wallula  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir;  the  supplies  for  none  of  those  places  pass 
through  Wallula  ;  they  are  landed  at  Lewiston. 

Int.  58. — Do  not  the  steamers  that  navigate  the  river,  with 
the  exception  of  a  few  to  Lewiston  and  White  Bluffs,  all  of 
them  stop  at  Wallula  in  going  up  the  river? 

Aus. — Some  only  go  as  far  as  Umatilla;  some  go  on  to 
Wallula  ;  the  others  go  on  to  White  Bluffs  or  Lewiston. 

Int.  59. — At  the  time  you  left  Wallula,  or  the  valley  of  the 


159 


lining 
pass 

pass 

with 
all  of 


Walla-Walla,  how  many  stores  were  there  in  Walliila  for  the 
sale  of  goods  ? 

Ans. — I  was  there  last  April;  there  were  then  two  stores 
there  for  the  sale  of  goods. 

Int.  00. — How  many  hotels? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  sir ;  one  or  two. 

Int.  Gl. — You  have  stated  that  it  would  be  impos^.sible  to 
make  a  mile  square  of  enclosed  land  without  cro.>isiiig  the 
Walla-Walla  river  several  times? 

A7t'<. — Twice. 

Int.  62. — What  is  the  distance  between  the  mouth  of  the 
Walla-Walla  river  and  the  mouth  of  the  Snake;  and  in  that 
distance  is  there  a  single  stream  to  interrupt  the  enclosure? 

A)is. — I  do  not  know  the  distance;  my  impression  is,  it  is 
some  fifteen  miles;  there  is  no  stream  intervening;  I  still 
repeat  iny  former  assertion,  however. 

Int.  03. — On  what  line  of  tliat  enclosure  would  it  be  neces- 
sary to  cross  the  river  twice ;  on  the  north  and  south,  or  the 
east  and  west  line  ? 

Ans. — The  town  Wallula — the  Old  Fort — stood  on  a  narrow 
tongue  of  land,  between  the  Walla-Walla  creek  and  the  Co- 
lumbia river,  the  creek  or  rivjr  running  nearly  parallel  to  the 
Columbia  ;  no  square  mile  of  land  could  be  laid  oil'  which 
would  include  the  old  adobe  fort,  and  not  cross  that  stream. 

Int.  04. — You  mean  by  that,  that  no  square  mile  could  be 
laid  off,  at  right  angles  to  the  course  of  the  river,  without 
crossing  the  river  twice  ? 

Ans. — I  mean  that  no  body  or  tract  of  land  could  be  laid 
off  containing  a  square  mile,  in  a  solid  form,  without  crossing 
the  Walla-Walla  river. 

Int.  05. — Do  you  mean  to  say,  that  a  mile  of  land,  640 
acres,  cannot  be  laid  oflF  without  crossing  the  Walla-Walla 
river  twice,  and  so  as  to  include  the  Old  Fort? 

Ans. — No.  sir  ;  I  do  not  think  that  at  all ;  I  mean  that  no 
square  mile  of  land,  in  a  compact  form,  could  be  laid  off  there  ' 
to  include  the  old  adobe  fort,  and  not  cross  the  Walla-Walla 
river,  bounded  by  the  Columbia  river  ou  the  other  side;  of 


w 


§■ 


160 

course  there  is  more  than  640  acres  of  land  on  that  side  of  the 
river,  more  than  6,000  acres. 

Int.  00. — You  mean  then  to  say,  that  taking  the  Columbia 
river  as  one  line,  and  the  other  lines  being  at  right  angles  to 
the  river,  a  square  mile  of  land  could  not  be  laid  out  without 
crossing  the  river  ? 

An8. — Yes,  sir.  ' 

Int.  67. — Does  not  the  Walla- Walla  river,  a  short  distance 
from  its  mouth,  in  going  up  the  river,  change  its  direction  to 
the  South?  * 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  68. — Do  you  know  the  amount  of  freight  delivered  at 
Umatilla  in  a  year  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not. 

Int.  69. — Do  you  know  how  many  tons  of  freight  are  laid 
down  at  Wallula  in  a  day  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Int.  70. — In  a  year  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  give  any  statistics  about  it. 

Int.  71. — Is  there  not  plenty  of  bunch  grass,  upon  which 
cattle  and  stock  can  feed,  immediately  in  the  rear  of  the  old 
adobe  fort  of  Wallula? 

jlns, — Bunch  grass  is  not  abundant  until  you  get  four  or 
five  miles  away  from  the  river. 

Int.  72. — Is  there  any  bunch  grass  suitable  for  pasturage 
near  the  old  fort  of  Wallula?  / 

Ans. — No,  sir;  there  is  not. 

Int.  73. — How  far  from  the  old  fort  can  the  first  bunch  grass 
be  found? 

^jtg. — The  first  bunch  grass  is  found,  I  think,  about  three 
miles  off;  it  does  not  come  plentifully  for  stock  until  a  greater 
distance  is  reached. 

Interrogatories  in  rebuttal  hy  Caleb  Cashing,  in  behalf  of  the 
j  United  States. 

Int.  1. — Were  the  buildings  which  you  have  described  at 
Fort  Umpqua  constructed  of  what  is  known  as  square  timber, 


161 


or  wore  tlicy  constructed  of  what  is  the  usual  material  of  log 
houses  ill  the  western  States? 

A7if(. — Tliey  were  what  is  known  in  Oregon  as  French-hewn 
log  houses;  a  small  portion  of  the  timher  was  sfjuare  on  four 
sides,  l)iit  most  of  it  was  only  hewn  on  two  sides. 

fiif.  2. — Have  you  any  knoAvledgeof  square  timber  at  Port- 
land, its  marketable  value,  and  the  like? 

A)ix. — I  had  not  at  that  time. 

hit.  .'5. — Has  the  price  of  timber  at  Portland  any  particular 
relation  to  your  estimation  of  the  value  of  log  houses  in  the 
valley  of  tlie  Umpqua? 

Ai(N. — None  whatever;  no  more  than  the  value  of  timber  in 
Paris;  there  was  no  connection  between  the  two  places,  and 
no  transportation;  there  was  no  lumber  used  in  the  construc- 
tion of  these  buildings. 

Jnt.  4. — You  were  asked  in  cross-examination  the  height  of 
the  stockade  in  tlie  valley  of  the  Umpqua;  of  what  is  that 
stockade  made? 

ylns. — Tt  was  made  of  fir  poles  or  small  logs,  planted  in  the 
ground  and  tied  together  Avith  wooden  strips  at  the  top. 

Int.  T). — What,  in  the  year  1850,  was  the  pecuniary  value  of 
those  fir  logs,  standing  as  they  grew? 

yln.s'. — They  had  no  value — were*vorth  nothing. 

Int.  0. — As  raw  material,  they  had  no  value? 

Ans. — They  had  no  value. 

Int.  7. — What  was  the  value,  as  raw  material,  of  the  logs 
of  timber  of  which  the  buildings  were  constructed? 

Ani<. — Nothing. 

Int.  8. — From  whoso  lands  must  these  logs  and  those  fir 
trees  have  been  cut? 

Ans. — From  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States ;  all  of 
them. 

Int.  0. — There  was  nothing  in  the  building  or  stockade 
except  the  labor? 

Ans. — No  tiling. 

Int.  10. — Was  there  anything  in  the   construction   there, 
apart  from  the  material  and  excepting  the   labor  of  cutting 
11  II 


162 


them  from  the  public  lands  of  tho  United  States  and  putting; 
them  up? 

Ana. — Nothing ;  there  was  little  or  no  iron  used  in  the 
buildings,  and  no  glass. 

Itit.  11. — Have  you  any  knowledge,  from  your  observation 
of  tho  country  and  its  inhabitants,  of  the  relative  cost  of  labor 
in  putting  up  a  fir  stockade  in  1850  and  at  some  time  prior  to 
that  time? 

Ans, — Prior  to  the  discovery  of  the  gold  mines  in  1848  it 
would  cost  less  money  than  in  1850,  because  labor  was  more 
abundant  and  much  cheaper. 

Int.  12. — Was  or  not  your  estimate  of  the  labor  involved, 
in  your  estimate  of  the  cost  or  value  of  those  buildings  in  1850 
and  of  the  work  done  upon  them,  greater  in  1850  than  it  would 
have  boon  prior  to  the  discovery  of  gold? 

Atis. — Much  greater. 

Int.  13. — From  your  knowledge  of  the  Indians  there,  and 
half-breeds,  and  work  done  by  them,  was  or  not,  in  your  judg- 
ment, the  cost  of  their  labor  prior  to  1848,  greater  or  less  than 
the  cost  of  white  laborers  in  1850? 

Ans. — It  was  far  less  ;  the  cost  of  Indian  labor  to  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  was  a  mere  nothing;  they  subsisted  them 
on  potatoes  and  salmon,  and  paid  them  in  clothing  and  trinkets 
at  most  enormous  prices. 

Int.  14. — What  implements  of  labor,  if  any,  would  have  been 
necessary  for  the  construction  of  the  stockade  and  the  build- 
ings at  Fort  Umpqua? 

Ans. — An  ax,  broad-ax,  and  an  auger. 

Int.  15. — What  was  the  description  of  the  enclosed  land  at 
Umpqua,  as  being  upland  or  alluvial  bottom-land  ? 

Ans. — Alluvial  bottom-land. 

Int.  16. — How  much  of  the  price,  from  $3  to  $5,  which  you 
have  said  is  the  value  of  the  best  of  such  alluvial  bottom-land 
now — how  much  of  that  is  due  to  the  Government  as  purchase 
money  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  understand. 

Int.  17. — This  is  public  domain;  how  much  do  settlers  have 
to  pay  for  it  ? 


163 


id  at 


you 
-land 
jhaso 


have 


Ans. — The  price  of  Government  land  is  $1  25  an  acre. 

Int.  18. — In  the  cross-examination  you  state  that  improved 
land  for  which  the  United  States  has  been  paid,  which  belongs 
to  a  private  proprietor  now,  and  which  is  improved,  not  only 
by  fencing  and  by  buildings,  the  price  is  from  $3  to  $5? 

An8. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  19. — Is  there,  or  not,  any  particular  causes  which  tend 
to  deteriorate  the  value  of  growing  crops  in  the  valley  of  the 
Umpqua? 

Ans. — I  think  not. 

Int.  20. — Are  they,  or  are  they  not,  subject  to  vicissitudes, 
such  as  uncertainty  of  weather,  drought,  or  insects,  or  grass- 
hoppers, or  any  other  cause  which  might  affect  their  value? 

Ans. — The  valley  has  occasionally  been  visited  by  grass- 
hoppers, which  are  very  destructive,  destroying  crops  and 
fruit  trees;  and  indeed  all  the  vegetation  in  the  valley  has  been 
destroyed  by  them  once  or  twice. 

Int.  21. — You  have  spoken  in  the  cross-examination  of  the 
actual  value  of  the  Davis  farm  on  the  Walla  Walla;  please 
to  describe  what  improvements  there  are  upon  that  farm,  apart 
from  the  mere  earth. 

Ans. — There  are  some  log  dwellings  upon  it,  several  barns, 
granaries,  and  other  buildings — farm  buildings — and  it  is  en- 
closed and  subdivided  into  fields  with  good  fencing,  which  is 
very  expensive  there;  ten  times  more  so  than  in  some  other 
parts  of  Oregon ;  rails  have  to  be  hauled  fifteen  or  twenty 
miles. 

Int.  22. — Do,  or  not,  all  these  improvements  enter  into  the 
estimate  of  the  value  of  the  Davis  farm? 

Ans. — They  do. 

Int.  23. — What  is  the  precise  character  of  the  improvements 
made  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  upon  the  farm  claimed 
by  them  on  the  Walla  Walla? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  that  they  ever  had  any  improvements 
on  the  farm  except  the  cabin.  I  do  not  know  that  there  was 
ever  any  fencing  there;  my  impression  is  there fiever  was;  it 
was  cultivated,  and  the  Indians  herded  stock  off  of  it. 

Int.  24. — You  have  spoken  of  hotels,  one  or  more  hotels  at 


164 


Wallula  ;  be  good  enough  to  dcscribo  those  liotols  (tliat  being 
a  term  of  sotnowhat  vague  application)  as  rehitively  to  the 
Fifth  Avenue  or  \Vi Hard's  Hotel. 

Aiis. — Well,  tliey  are  a  very  uncomfortable  sort  of  hash- 
houses,  where  a  traveller  is  compeHed  to  stop  and  enjoy  the 
vermin  and  tlie  filth  as  well  as  he  can.  They  are  lik(!  other 
stopping-places  in  a  new,  wild  country;  a  man  can  get  enough 
to  stay  Ills  stomach  and  a  blanket  to  sleep  in,  if  he  wants  't. 

Int.  25. — What  arc  the  dimensions  of  the  hotel  that  i:5  chiefly 
in  your  mind? 

Aus. — The  one  I  have  usually  stopped  at  is  kept  in  an 
adobe  fort,  the  only  one  remaining  of  the  Hudson's  JJiiy  Fort. 
It  is,  perhaps,  18  feet  by  30  feet  in  dimensions,  and  two 
stories  high. 

Int.  2G. — You  have  spoken  of  stores,  two  stores  there;  I 
would  like  to  understand  their  dimensions  relatively  to  Mr- 
Stewart's  store  in  New  York,  as  that  word  is  also  an  extremely 
vague  term. 

Ans. — One  of  them  is,  I  should  estimate  very  roughly,  20 
or  25  feet  front  by  35  feet  deep.  The  other  one  is  much 
smaller. 

Int.  27. — Are  these  adobe  or  wooden  buildings  ? 

Ans. — Wooden  buildings. 

7w«.  28.— Of  what  height? 

Ans. — One  story.  I  believe,  upon  reflection,  that  there  is 
a  third  store  now,  of  smaller  dimensions  than  the  one  whose 
size  I  have  just  given. 

Int.  29. — Whether  is  the  site  of  Nez  Perces  a  tract  of  rich, 
alluvial  land  or  not? 

Ans. — It  is  not;  it  is  a  sandy  desert. 

Int.  30. — Whether  there  is  anything  of  peculiar  value  in 
the  tract  that  was  apparently  occupied  by  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  at  Nez  Perces  Fort  as  their  farm? 

Ans. — It  is  no  better  than  much  other  land  in  the  Walla- 
Walla  Valley. 

Int.  31. — Are  the  lands  of  which  that  farm  constituted  a 
part — have  they  ever  been  surveyed  by  the  United  States? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir.     I  think  they  have. 


^  1C5 

Int.  32. — Arc  tlicro,  or  not,  any  unsold  lands  of  the  United 
States  there  in  that  rei^ion? 

An». — A  very  small  portion  have  ever  been  claimed  or  pur- 
chased. 

Int.  33. — Does  your  answer  apply  to  what  has  been  called, 
in  the  cross-examination,  alluvial  lands,  as  well  as  others? 

Ans, — No,  sir;  it  includes  all  uplands  and  the  alluvial 
lands.  A  large  portion  of  the  hitter  have  either  been  pur- 
chased from  the  United  States,  or  taken  up  as  donui  >\\  or 
pre-emption  claims. 

Re- Cross- Examined  hy  FAward  Lander.,  in  behalf  of  the  Hud- 
son a  Bay  Company. 

Int.  1. — Arc  not  those  lands  you  have  spoken  of  as  untakcn 
and  unclaimed,  in  the  Walla-Walla  Valley,  pasturage  lands, 
which  are  not  valuable  for  cultivation? 

Ans. — They  are  pasturage  lands;  they  are  none  of  them 
valuable  for  cultivation.  The  alluvial  land  which  is  valimble 
for  cultivation  is  nearly  quite  all  held  or  owned  or  claimed  by 
white  settlers. 

J.  W.  Perit  Huntington. 

James  W.  Tooley, 

Stenographer. 


Testimony  of  William  R.  Gibson. 

In   the  matter  of   the  Hudson's   Bay   Company  against  the 

United  States. 

Deposition  of   William  M.  Gibson,  taken  in  behalf  of  the 
United  States. 


'I 


Interrogatories  propounded  by  Caleb  Cushing,  in  behalf  of  the 

United  States. 

Ques.  1. — Please  to  state  your  name  in  full,  your  official 
station  or  rank,  if  any,  and  your  place  of  duty. 


166 


An8. — My  name  1*8  William  R.  Gibson;  I  am  a  colonel  and 
paymaster  in  the  Army  of  the  United  States,  and  am  stationed 
at  Washington. 

Qu(;>«.  2. — Have  you  any  interest,  direct  or  indirect,  in  the 
claim  preferred  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the 
United  States,  except  as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States? 

Ann. — None  whatever. 

Qwfi.  3. — Whether  or  not  you  have,  at  any  period  of  time, 
resided  in  the  former  Territory  of  Oregon,  and  if  so,  from 
what  year  to  what  year  inclusive? 

Ans. — From  1848  to  1856,  I  was  stationed  at  what  was 
originally  the  Territory  of  Oregon. 

Ques.  4. — In  what  part  of  Oregon  did  you  chiefly  reside? 

Ans. — At  Fort  Dallas,  in  the  latter  part  of  my  residence, 
and  in  the  prior  part  of  it  at  Vancouver. 

Ques.  5. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  site  of  the  old 
fort  of  Nez  Perces  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir :  I  have  been  there  very  frequently. 

Ques.  6. — Please  to  describe  the  situation  of  that  fort  rela- 
tively to  the  United  States  fort  of  Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — That  I  cannot  do ;  the  present  United  States  fort 
was  not  built  when  I  left  the  country. 

Ques.  7. — State  exactly  where  the  fort  of  Nez  Percfes  was 
situated  ? 

Ans. — The  fort  of  Walla-Walla  was  then  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Walla-Walla  river,  on  a  sand-bank  formed  at  the  junction 
of  the  two  rivers,  the  Columbia  and  the  Walla- Walla. 

Ques.  8. — Is  or  not  the  fort  of  Walla- Walla  of  which  you 
speak  a  different  place  from  the  United  States  fort  of  the 
Walla-Walla  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  as  I  understand  it ;  I  do  not  know  the  location 
of  the  present  United  States  fort  of  Walla-Walla. 

Ques.  9. — You  understand  it  is  a  different  place  ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Ques.  10. — And  is  it  or  not  the  same  place  which  is  some- 
times also  called  Nez  Percys  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Ques.  11. — Please  to  describe  what  buildings,  if  any,  existed 


167 


at  tho  Hudson's  Bay  post  of  old  Walla- Walla  at  the  time  when 
you  saw  it. 

Ann. — There  was  an  old  stockade  fort  with  storcliousos  and 
'Iwollin^^-Iiuuses,  two  or  three  of  them,  inside  the  stockade;  I 
d'^  not  know  tho  number  ;  it  is  some  years  ago  since  I  saw  it; 
I  huve  not  hcen  there  since  1853,  and  then  I  only  made  casual 
visits  whilst  passing  to  and  fro. 

QucH.  12. — Do  you  know  anything  of  a  place  near  that  fort 
called  VVi.llula? 

Ann. — That  was  the  landing,  I  believe. 

Que».  l-'{. — At  tliat  time  was  there  or  not  any  landing-place 
near  the  old  fort  of  Walla-Walla  ? 

An8. — There  was  no  special  landing-place  other  than  the 
beach ;  the  boats  landed  there  going  to  and  from  the  lower 
river. 

Ques.  14. — Was  there  or  not  at  that  time  any  town  on  that 
beach  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir  ;  no  town  there  at  all. 

QucH.  15. — Were  there  or  not  any  buildings  there? 

Ans. — I  remember  none. 

Ques.  16. — Are  you  acquainted  with  Fort  Hall  ? 

Ana. — My  knowledge  of  Fort  Hall  is  very  limited  indeed; 
I  have  been  there  three  different  times  in  passing. 

Qucs.  17. — Was  there  or  not  any  considerable  establishment 
of  buildings  there  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir ;  I  believe  not. 

Ques.  18. — From  your  observation,  for  what  uses,  and  in 
what  manner,  was  that  post  occupied  ? 

Ans. — Well,  the  trade  [had]  run  down  vei*y  much  when  I  was 
there  ;  they  were  trading  more  with  emigrants  than  anything 
else ;  they  had  stock  there. 

Ques.  19. — Have  you  ever  been  at  the  place  called  Fort 
Boise  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  in  going  to  and  from  Fort  Hall. 

Ques.  20. — Please  to  describe  that  place,  as  far  as  you 
remember  it. 

Ans. — It  was  a  small  trading-post,  much  less  than  Walla- 


I 


'iii 


'It 


■  I'r- 

HP: 

m 

*■ 

C-r- 

>{>■*■■  -'^i'' 


168 

Walla  or  Fort  Hall,  but  I  cannot  describe  it ;  I  cannot  dis- 
tinctly remember  what  it  was  like  now. 

Ques.  21. — What,  according  to  your  observation  of  it,  was 
the  apparent  value  of  that  establishment  in  money? 

Ans. — Well,  it  had  no  value  for  me  .  t  all ;  I  would  not  have 
bought  it  at  an}'^  price;  I  could  not  have  been  hired  to  have 
lived  there ;  the  buildings  were  in  a  very  bad  condition  when 
I  saw  them;  they  vere  in  a  very  tumble-down  condition;  I 
would  not  have  given  anything  at  all  for  them. 

Ques.  22. — What,  from  your  observation,  were  the  apparent 
uses  and  occupation  of  the  establishment  of  Nes  Porces  or 
old  fort  of  Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — From  my  knoMdedojo  uf  it,  it  was  more  a  halting  or 
resting-place  for  the  potiies  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Odmpany 
going  up  into  the  interior  with  packs,  than  anything  else. 
They  did  some  Hitle  trading  with  the  Indians  with  ponies. 

Ques.  23. — What  apparent  Indian  trade,  other  than  that  of 
ponies,  did  you  observe  there  ? 

Ans. — Very  little,  except  that  they  got  a  few  skins  there; 
a  few  bear  skins  were  taken  there,  and  they  traded  beaver, 
because  they  were  compelled  to  do  so,  or  they  could  not  other- 
wise have  got  any  bear  skins. 

Ques.  24. — What  was  the  quality  of  the  land  around  the  old 
fort  of  Walla-Walla  ? 

Ans. — Immediately  around  the  fort  [it]  was  a  sand  bank, 
pretty  much;  about  twenty-five  or  thirty  miles  from  there  was 
good  land. 

Ques.  25. — Whether  or  not  on  the  hills  at  some  dirftancc 
from  the  fort  there  was  pasturage  of  bunch  grass  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir,  an  abundance ;  the  country  was  noted  as  a 
pasturage. 

(Objection  taken  by  Mr.  Edward  Lander  to  this  question 
and  a^i^wer,  on  the  ground  that  the  question  was  a  leading 
one.) 

Ques.  2G. — On  those  hills,  did  you  or  not,  notice  any  ponies 
or  cattle  pasturing  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  I  have  frequently  seen  tliem  there,  ponies 
and  cattle  too. 


III 'I 


■"w^wwifn 


»i««>y 


169 

Ques.  27. — Have  you  or  not,  at  any  time  liad  conversation 
with  Peter  S.  Ogden,  the  chief  agent  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  in  regard  to  the  condition'  of  the  forts  of  the  Com- 
pany in  Oregon  ? 

Ans. — I  have,  in  relation  to  the  business  of  the  Company. 

Qucft.  28. — IMcase  to  state  what  he  communicated  to  you 
on  that  subject. 

(Objecteil  to  by  Mr.  Lander,  on  the  ground  that  the  state- 
ments of  Mr.  Ogden  arc  not  within  the  scojie  id'  liis  agency, 
as  shown  by  tlie  testimony  in  this  cause.) 

Witness. — Mr.  Ogden  has  frequently  said  to  mo  that  the 
Company  merely  kept  up  their  establishment  in  order  to  make 
good  their  claim,  and  that  their  trade  had  entirely  fallen  oiF, 
and  the  fin-  trade  was  worthless. 

Qucx.  20. — What  did  you  understand  by  the  expression 
"make  good  their  claim,"  if  anything  was  said  by  Mr.  Ogden 
that  should  communicate  an  explicit  idea  of  the  meaning  of 
the  word  ? 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Lander,  on  the  same  grounds  as  befor(\) 

Witness. — I  understood  that  it  was  necessary  for  them  to 
be  in  possession  of  and  occupy  the  property  claimed,  in  order 
that  their  claim  might  be  valid  and  have  effect. 

Ques.  30. — Claim  against  whom  ? 

Ans. — Against  the  United  States. 

Ques.  8L — Did  or  iioi ,  Mr.  Ogden  U'^e  any  words  commu- 
nicating to  you  the  idea  that  what  he  spoke  of  was  claimed 
against  the  Unittd  States? 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Lander,  upon  the  same  grounds  as 
before,  the  incompetency  of  the  evidence;  and  upon  the 
further  ground  that  the  question  is  leading,  and  directing  the 
attentio?!  of  the  witness  to  the  answer  to  be  marie.) 

Wilneita. — He  stated  distinctly  it  was  a  claim  against  the 
United  States;  there  was  no  misunderstanding  in  the  matter. 

QiKt.  82. — What,  according  to  your  observatio  i,  was  the 
condition  of  tlie  fur  trade  when  you  arrived  in  Oregon,  as 
whether  on  the  increase,  or  stationary,  or  on  the  wane  ? 

Ans. — It  was  very  much  on  the  decrease,  atid  continued  to 
decrease  during  my  stay  in  that  country. 


170 

Quci..  33. — Did  or  not  Mr.  Ogden  say  anything  in  regard 
to  the  fur  trade,  and  the  kind  of  fur  purchased  by  the  Indians 
at  that  time  ? 

An%, — He  suid  that  the  fur  trade  had  become  Avorthless ; 
that  the  beaver  had  ceased  to  pay ;  and  the  only  skins  they 
cared  for  were  the  bear  and  a  few  fox  skins ;  and  those  were 
all  they  could  get. 

(The  whole  of  this  question  and  answer  objected  to  on  the 
grounds  heretofore  taken,  in  reference  to  any  conversation 
with  Mr.  Ogden.) 

Wit)hi<H. — I  staid  at  Mr.  Ogden's  every  time;  I  staid  at  his 
post,  and  we  had  then  these  talks  together. 

< h-()S8-Examinatlon  hy  Mr.  Edward  Lander,  in  hehalf  of  the 
Hudson  8  Bay  Company. 


* 
^■^ 


Ques.  1.— What  was  your  rank  in  the  service  at  the  time 
you  were  in  Oregon  ? 

Ans.—l  was  a  clerk  in  the  Quartermaster's  Department, 
and  afterwards  Military  Storekeeper, 

Qncs.  2.— Do  you  knoAV,  from  your  own  observation,  that 
the  landing  at  Wallula,  or  the  old  fort  of  Nes  Forces,  is  the 
usual  landing  for  boats  on  the  Columbia  river,  passing  there? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Qaes.  3. — Do  you  not  know  that  the  old  fort  of  Nez  Perces 
is  not  more  than  200  yards  from  the  river  at  the  ordinary 
landing? 

Ans. — That  was  my  impression  of  it  as  I  now  rt  .omber. 

Qaes.  4. — Have  you  ever  seen  the  place  called  Wallula,  and 
is  not  the  statement  which  you  have  made  in  reference  to  that 
place  derived  from  information  which  you  have  received  since 
you  have  been  upon  the  Atlantic  side? 

Ans. — Of  Wallula,  yes  sir;  I  do  not  know  Wallula  except 
from  what  I  have  been  told  of  it. 

Ques.  5. — At  the  time  you  were  at  the  post  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  at  fort  of  Nez  Perces,  were  not  their  buildings 
and  fort  the  only  buildings  on  the  land? 


"1  . 

Ans. — As  far  as  I  remember,  I  do  not  know  of  any  other; 
there  was  nobody  else  in  the  country  at  that  time. 

Qc''.s.  6. — Is  your  description  of  Fort  Boise  and  Fort  Hall 
as  correct,  and  is  your  r,.collection  as  di'^*^inct  of  Fort  Hall 
and  Fort  Boij^e,  as  of  Fort  Nez  Perces. 

Arts. — I  have  not  been  to  either  of  those  phices  as  often  as 
to  the  fort  of  Wallula. 

•  Ques.  7. — Do  you  not  know  that  there  is  bunch  grass,  aiford- 
ing  pasturage  for  cattle  and  horses,  commencing  within  a  mile 
from  the  site  of  the  old  Fort  Nez  Perce.^? 

Ans. — Bunch  grass?  No  sir,  I  do  not. 

Ques.  8. — How  far  do  you  say  it  is  i'rom  that  fort  before  you 
noticed  the  first  bunch  grass? 

Ans. — Well  the  first  hunch  grass  that  I  remember  at  all  in 
coming  from  the  fort  was  at  Whitman's  Mission, 

Ques.  9. — Was  there  no  good  land  in  the  valley  of  the  Walla- 
^^alla  river  towards  its  mouth? 

Ans. — I  do  not  think  there  is  any  nearer  than  the  Mission; 
I  do  not  remember  anv  now. 

Ques.  10. — Between  1853  and  1856,  how  did  tlie  travelling 
road  run,  direct  from  the  old  fort  to  Whitman's  ^lission  and 
up  to  the  creek  ? 

Ans. — I  never  was  at  Walla-Walla  since  1853;  my  last  visit 
was  in  1853. 

Ques.  11. — Whether  the  trail  from  the  old  fort  to  Whitman's 
Mission  at  the  time  you  were  at  Walla-Walla  run  up  the  creek, 
the  Walla-Walla  creek? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Ques.  12. — Were  not  all  the  horses  then  used  and  owned  in 
that  section  of  the  country  Indian  ponies  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  except  a  few  they  may  have  traded  with  the 
emigrants;  but  the  majority  were  of  course  Indian  ponies. 

Ques.  13. — Were  .'here  not  inside  of  Fort  Hall  dwelling- 
houses  and  stores? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  the  principal  dwelling-house  was  outside; 
the  one  Captain  Grant  occupied  was.  I  think  so;  I  cannot  say 
for  certain. 


charge 
Ans. 


172 

Ques.  14. — ITow  long  wore  you  at  Fort  Hall  at  any  one 
time,  and  liow  many  times? 

Ans. — I  have  been  three  times;  I  was  never  over  three  days 
thorc  ai  any  one  time. 

Ques.  1"). — At  what  seasons  were  you  there? 

Atis. — I  was  there  in  the  fall  and  during  the  early  summer. 

Que.s.  10. — Do  you  think  your  opportunities  of  judging  of  the 
trade  of  the  post,  of  Avhat  it  consisted,  and  of  what  it  had 
consisted  before  that,  are   equal   to   those  of  the  officer  in 

Of  course  not,  sir;  I  know  the  nature  of  the  trade 
at  the  time  I  was  there,  and  the  character  of  the  things  they 
took  into  that  country,  because  they  passed  the  post  I  was  at. 

Qttcs.  17. — At  what  year  were  you  at  Fort  Boise? 

Ans. — 1  was  at  Fort  Boise  in  1848;  I  was  again  at  Fort 
Boise  in  1851  and  1852. 

Ques.  18. — Who  was  in  charge  of  the  post  at  the  time  you 
were  there? 

Ans. — I  think  his  name  was  Craig,  [Craigie;]  Maxwell  was 
there  during  the  last  part  of  the  time  I  was  there. 

Ques.  19. — Was  there  not  at  Fort  Hall,  and  Avere  there  not 
at  Fort  Boise,  inside  of  the  fort,  storehouses  and  dwelling- 
houses? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Ques.  20. — Were  not  the  walls  of  the  fort  at  that  time  in 
good  repair? 

Ans. — I  think  not,  sir;  my  impression  is  not;  I  thought  it  a 
very  dilapidated-looking  place  when  I  was  there. 

Ques.  21. — To  which  visit  have  you  reference  when  you  say 
it  was  a  dilapidated  place? 

Ans. — I  thought  so  at  the  first;  and  I  did  not  think  it  had 
improved  in  condition  at  my  last  visit. 

Qu?s.  22. — At  what  time  of  the  year  were  you  there  ? 

Ans. — It  was  the  fall  and  in  the  early  spring,  passing  to 
and  from  Fort  Hall  in  the  fall  of  1848,  and  the  other  times  in 
the  early  summer  months. 

Ques.  23. — Did  not  the  dilapidated  condition  of  these  forts 


!l 


I, 

pit' 


-'PWPI.1'1111 


pji!i,u9ii9iuui.^_i 


178 


arise  from  their  being  built  of  iidobe,  and  liavin<v  a  dusty  ap- 


\ 


ith 


1     CUIK 


lit 


ion 


pcaraiicc  iii  dry  wciitnor; 

An!<. — Tiiat  would  not  account  for  tlicir  •won 
they  1()oI\(m1  very  much  'worn  and  out  of  condition. 

Qucs.  24. — Have  you  any  distinct  recollection  of  the  ap- 
pearance of  these  forts,  and  has  not  the  Icii^tli  of  time  that 
has  elapsed  since  you  saw  them,  and  the  excitcfrient  of  the 
last  four  years,  caused  your  recollection  to  Ite  impaired  with 
reference  to  tliem  ? 


Aiii<. — T  think  not,  sir;   mv  first  visit  to  tlicm  wa^s  I'lillv  i 


m- 


pressed  on  my  mind,  l)eeausc  I  had  come  from  a  lon^;  iri])  over 
the  country,  and  they  Avere  the  first  houses  oi-  habitations 
almost  that  I  saAv. 

i.'ou  sav  you  were  at   Fort  I>()i>e   thi-ee  times; 


0 


Id's.  -•). 


how  1< 
A. 


)U'f  did  you  remain  there  at  each  time 


th 


:h  ti 


Jl.ni:!. 


-Not 


)ver  a  day  or  two  at  any  one  time. 


QucH.  2l). — Is  the  knowledge  which  you  have  e.\j)ressed  Avith 
reference  to  the  trade  at  Fort  IJoisc  derived  from  vour  visits 
there  at  those  times? 


Am 


-No,  sir;   not  so  much  as 


fr 


om  my  conversations  Avi 


til 


Mr.Ogden  in  relation  to  his  trade;  and  all  theollicers,  in  fact, 
of  the  Comi)anA-  talked  the  same  Avav. 

Qnc.^.  27. — Then  your  statement  Avith  reference  to  the  trade 
is  made  up  more  from  statements  of  Mr.  Ogden  than  your 
own  observation 


y 


Ans. — Yes,  sir;  that  and  the  supplies  they  sent  in  to  the 
post,  and  the  trade  Avith  the  emigrants. 

Qtu'i<.  28. — Did  you  examine  those  supplies,  or  is  your 
knoAvledge  of  those  supplies  derived  from  the  statements  of 
the  officer  in  charge? 

Ans. — I  saAv  them  landed  and  put  on  the  animals,  and  car- 
ried up  into  the  country. 


Oiicx.  29. — Were  not  these  supplies  in  i)ackao;r 


I' 


d  I 


UHl    POUIU 


around,  so  that  in  order  to  ascertaiu   the  contents   the  pack- 
a^-es  would  have  to  opened? 

A)ii<. — Xo,  sir;  I  know  they  Avere  provisions  tiom  the  man- 
ner in  Avhicii  they  Avere  packed,  and  also  from  the  statement 
of  the  ollieer  in  charge  of  them;   I  have  fretiucntly  acted  as 


174 


*  ^■ 


* 


h-* 


agent  for  Mr.  Ogdcn,  in  forwartling  off  these  packages,  at  his 
request. 

Ques.  80. — Can  you  give  the  exact  language  made  use  of 
to  you  by  Mr.  Ogdcn  in  any  conversation  you  have  hehl  with 
him? 

Ann. — No,  sir,  I  cannot;  it  was  a  frequent  subject  of  cou- 
vc'sation,  and  that  was  the  burden  of  it — the  falling  off  of 
their  trade,  and  their  object  in  remaining  there. 

Ques.  31. — Is  not  the  statement  you  have  made,  in  refer- 
ence to  what  Mr.  O^rden  told  vou,  the  statement  of  an  im- 
prcssion  made  upon  your  mind  by  various  conversations,  none 
of  which  you  can  distinctly  relate! 

Ans. — No,  sir;  it  is  the  substance  of  the  conversations  1 
had  with  him;  the  substat  ce,  and  not  the  impression  left 
with  me;  I  have  a  distinct  impression  of  the  substance  of  the 
conversation,  not  in  so  many  words,  but  that  was  the  charac- 
ter of  it. 

Ques.  32. — Can  you  state  Avhcrc  conversations  occurred — at 
what  place,  and  at  what  time? 

Ans. — In  his  house  at  Fort  Vancouver;  the  times  were 
numerous;  I  cannot  say  what  time;  I  never  expected  to  give 
any  testimony  in  the  matter,  and  I  never  noticed  it  particu- 
larly; in  visiting  the  post,  coming  from  Fort  Dalles,  I  always 
stayed  with  Mr.  Ogden;  he  was  a  warm  personal  friend  of 
mine,  and  very  kind. 

Ques.  33. — Was  there  any  person  present  at  these  numer- 
ous conversations  between  Mr.  Ogden  and  yourself,  in  which 
the  subject  was  talked  about? 

Ans. — No,  sir;  there  was  no  sccresy  about  it.  I  do  not 
remember  any  parties  being  present. 

Ques.  34. — Can  you  call  to  mind  any  particular  conversa- 
tion, giving  tile  date  tlierewf,  wliieh  oceurred  between  you  and 
Mr.  OgdiMi,  or  the  date  as  near  as  you  possibly  can? 

Ans. — No,  I  cannot;  my  visits  there  were  fro((uent,  and  wo 
were  ccnstaiitly  talking  (OiEi  the  subject;  he,  time  and  again, 
expressed  the  opinion  r.hat  they  would  go,  all  of  them,  to  ViMm- 
couver's  Island  before  a  great  while;  and  Uio  conversation 
was  brought  about  in  tliat  way,  more  particularly  about  our 


175 

separation,  and  my  not  seeing  him  ;  but  as  for  any  particular 
dates,  I  said  before,  I  never  had  any  particular  reason  to  take 
notice  of  tlicm  for  future  reference. 

Qucs.  35. — Can  you  give  the  time  of  the  year  that  any  one 
of  these  conversations  took  place? 

Ans. — I  cannot.  I  have  been  there  repeatedly  at  all  seasonti 
of  the  year,  and  wo  were  continually  talking  of  these  things — 
repeatedly. 

Qucit.  oG. — Can  you  state  the  time  of  day  at  which  any  one 
of  these  conversations  took  place? 

•  AvH. — Well,  I  really  don't  understand  the  object  of  the 
question;  I  have  stated  that  I  cannot  particularize  any  time 
that  these  frequent  conversations  took  place,  except  that  it 
was  when  I  ^*-  .s  visiting  him,  and  I  cannot  f^ay  if  there  were 
any  persons  present;  there  was  no  secrc-sy  about  it;  there  ni,ay 
have  been  persons  there;  it  was  talked  of  continually;  it  was 
impressed  on  my  mind  by  the  fact  that  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  expected  to  get  out  of  that  country. 

Ques.  oT. — Did  not  Mr.  Ogden,  in  speaking  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Conipiuiy  getting  out  of  that  country,  also  couple  it  "with 
a  further  idea  that  they  would  get  out  of  the  country  when 
their  lands  were  purchased  by  the  United  States? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  they  expected  a  settlement  with  the  Gov- 
ernment; and  ho  frequently  said  that  it  was  the  interest  of  the 
Government  to  buy  at  once,  bcfoi-e  the  property  had  more 
value. 

Qucs.  38. — Did  he  not,  in  the  same  conversation,  complain 
strongly  of  the  treatment  which  he  had  received  from  the 
United  States  authorities,  and  especially  of  the  manner  in 
which  their  land  was  trespassed  unon  by  settlers? 

Ans. — lie  complained  very  bitterly  of  the  settlers  taking 
their  land. 

Quen.  39. — Did  he  not,  tit  the  same  time,  express  the  opinion 
that  the  United  States  authorities  ought,  in  someway,  to  have 
protected  them  in  their  rights? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  and  frequently  asked  that  protection. 

Qaes.  40. — Did  he  not,  at  the  same  time,  when  speaking  of 
the  decay  of  trade,  state  that  it  was  caused  by  the  encroach- 


I 


170 


mcnts  of  the  settlers  upon  the  lands  of  the  Company  in  some 
degree  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir;  there  were  no  settlers  encroaehinjf  upon  any 
of  their  liinds,  e.\cej)t  near  Vancouver  and  thei^e  other  lands 
down  in  the  settlenuiits.  There  were  no  settlers  in  the  Indian 
counti'V,  Avluie  tlii'y  were  trading  for  furs,  lie  has  made  the 
remark  that  he  did  not  consider  Oregon  a  fur  country,  since 
beaver  had  depreciated  in  value. 

(Jiirs.  41. — Did  y(»u  ever  have  any  access  to  the  books  of 
the  Conij)any,  so  as  to  knov,-  the  amount  of  trade,  and  the 
chaii'fes  of  trade,  after  vour  arrival  in  the  country? 

Aiii<. — Xo,  sir;  I  ceitainl}'^  would  not  seek  it,  and  do  not 
sup])ose  it  would  be  olfered  voluntarily. 

Qhcs.  42. — Do  you  think  that  any  one  can  tell  about  the 
decrease  of  any  trade  in  a  country  unless  he  himself  is 
specially  interested  in  it? 

(Mr.  Cushing  ol)jected  to  this  question  as  too  general,  spec- 
ulative, and  argumentative,  even  in  cross-examination.) 

Wltiici<ii. — I  have  seen  a  great  deal  of  the  trading  with  the 
Indians,  and  knew  the  character  of  it,  and  maile  my  impres- 
sions from  it. 

Qiu'S.  4-'J. — Was  Mr.  Grahame,  Mr.  Mactavish,  or  Mr.  Wirt, 
[Wark,]  either  or  any  of  them,  present  at  any  of  these  con- 
versations? 

Ans. — ^Iv.  Mactavish  did  not  come  there  until  Mr.  Ogden 
was  deceased;  he  succeeded  liim;  Mr.  Wirt  [Wark]  was  never 
there;  Mr.  (Jrahame  was  chief  clerk,  and  may  have  been 
present;   I  cannot  say  whether  he  was  or  not. 

Qn('}<.  44. — What  other  olKcers  of  the  Company  were  there 
except  those  that  have  been  named  to  [by]  you? 

A)is. — There  was  a  physician,  Dr.  Earclay,  there,  and  Mr. 
McNiel  McArthur,  and  ]Mr.  Lowe. 

Intcrroijatorics  in  Jiehiittal,  propounded  hj   Caleb  C'mshing,  in 
behalf  of  the  United  States. 

Qiies.  1. — Please  to  state  wdiether  you  did,  or  did  not,  at 
some  portions  of  time,  live  with  Mr.  Ogden,  as  a  member  of 
the  family. 


-a/ 1 


%i 


177 


Ana. — Only  as  a  guest,  sir,  when  I  have  been  visiting  the 
post. 

Ques.  2. — How  many  days,  more  or  less,  may  you  liave  been 
his  guest  when  at  that  post? 

Ans. — A  week  or  two  at  a  time. 

Qae8.  3. — On  those  occasions  did  you,  or  not,  eat  with  him? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Ques.  4. — Please  to  state  whether  your  intercourse  with  him 
was  distant  and  reserved,  or  familiar  and  usual. 

Ans. — It  was  entirely  the  contrary  of  distant.  I  waa  on 
very  intimate  terms  with  him.  He  was  a  warm  personal  friend 
of  mine  from  the  time  I  entered  the  country. 

Ques.  5. — State,  if  you  remember,  how  many  of  such  visits 
yon  have  passed  as  the  guest  of  Mr.  Ogden. 

Ans. — I  really  cannot  do  that. 

Ques.  G. — Whether  few  or  many? 

Ans. — Numerous.  I  was  continually  going  backwards  and 
forwards,  and  always  went  there. 

Ques.  7. — During  what  period  of  time,  years  or  months, 
Avere  you  thus  continually  going  backwards  and  forwards,  and 
stopping  there  as  a  guest  with  Mr.  Ogden? 

A71S. — I  was  going  there  continually,  from  the  time  I  left 
Vancouver  in  1850  until  Mr.  Ogden's  death  ;  continually  vis- 
ited him  at  all  seasons  of  the  year.  I  frequently  came  down 
there  on  My.  Ogden's  invitation ;  he  sent  for  me  to  come  down. 

Ques.  8. — During  how  many  years? 

Ans. — Some  four  years,  I  t}>ink,  sir. 

Ques.  9. — Please  to  state,  particularly  and  circumstantially, 
for  what  length  of  time,  more  or  less,  you  acted  as  the  agent 
of^Mr.  Ogden,  in  the  business  of  the  post,  at  Fort  Dalles. 

Ans. — Well,  it  was  not  a  regular  thing.  He  would  frequent- 
1}'^  write  to  me  to  see  to  sending  his  supplies  up.     It  was  not 


a  CO 


tinu  il  a* 


;ency,  and  on 


ly  wh 


en  receivin<i 


th 


e  care  o 


f  h 


IS 


party,  and  having  their  animals  provided  for,  which  I  did  for 


urn. 


It 


was 


tion  for:  it 


wi 


agency  that  I  received  no  pay  or  compensa- 
merely  a  friendly  act  on  my  part  for  Mr. 
Ogden,  at  his  request. 

Qiies.  10. — You  say  that  this  agency  was  not  continunl  but 


12  H 


178 


only  occasional;  please  to  state  whether  the  occasions  were 
rare  or  frec|uent. 

Ans. — Tiiey  were  not  frequent,  and  mostly  occnrrcd  when 
some  subordinate  person  was  going  up  in  charge  of  the  packs, 
when  he  would  request  me  to  see  that  they  got  off.  Frequently 
his  men  would  get  drunk  and  neglect  their  business. 

Qurs.  11. — According  to  your  recollections,  how  many  such 
occasions  were  there  in  the  course  of  a  year? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say. 

Ques.  12. — In  two  of  the  cross-interrogatories  reference  is 
made  to  the  walls,  so  called,  of  Fort  Boise;  please  to  describe 
those  walls,  their  material  and  their  actual  condition,  as  w  hether 
in  perfect  repair,  or  dilapidated  or  otherwise. 

Ans. — They  Avere  adobe  walls  and  in  very  bad  repair.  The 
weather  had  injured  them,  worn  them  in  many  places,  and  they 
wanted  a  great  deal  of  repair;  in  fact,  it  is  a  character  of  ma- 
terial that  wants  constant  repair,  which  I  do  not  think  they 
received.     I  never  saw  any  improvement  in  them. 

Ques.  13.' — You  have  said,  in  answer  to  a  cross-interrogatory, 
that  you  do  not  know  Wallula,  except  on  information;  do  you 
or  not  mean  by  this  to  exclude  any  knowledge  of  a  landing- 
place  at  the  old  fort  of  Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — I  never  knew  it  by  that  name.  I  never  knew  them 
call  the  place  Wallula ;  I  have  a  knowledge  of  the  usual 
landing-place  there. 

Ques.  14. — In  one  of  the  cross-interrogatories  you  were  asked 
whether  Wallula  was  not  the  usual  landing  for  boats  passing 
up  and  down ;  do  you  or  not  mean  by  your  answer  to  that  ques- 
tion, to  assert  that  there  was  no  other  landing-place  above  or 
below  Wallula? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  of  any  other  being  used  as  a  landing- 
place.     It  was  possible  to  land  both  above  and  below. 

Ques.  15. — Have  you  any  knowledge,  or  not,  of  the  landing- 
place  called  Umatilla? 

Ans. — Yes ;  I  know  the  Umatilla  landing. 

Ques.  16. — Have  you  or  not  any  knowledge  Avhich  of  the 
two  landings,  Wallula  or  Umatilla,  is  most  used? 

Ans. — Well,  at  that  time  the  landing  that  you  call  Wallula 


179 

was  used  entirely.     When  I  left  that  country  there  wore  none 
of  those  settlements  there  that  have  been  made  since. 


lle-Cro8%-Examlned  by  Edward  Lander,  in  behalf  of  the  Hud- 
son s  Day  Company. 

Qu('8.  1. — You  speak  of  being  agent  to  the  Company ;  do 
you  moan  by  that  that  you  wore  at  any  time,  or  ever,  a  regu- 
lar agent  of  the  Company,  or  even  of  Mr.  Ogden  ? 

yln.y. — I  acted  only  for  Mr.  Ogden,  on  various  occasions,  at 
his  re(iuest,  as  a  personal  friend  of  mine. 

Ques.  2. — Did  you  act  in  any  other  way  than  as  a  friend  of 
Mr.  Ogden's,  and  were  your  acts  other  than  those  of  a  friend, 
without  pay  as  agent,  or  compensation  as  such  ? 

Ana. — Yes,  sir;  these  parties  that  I  acted  for  were  sent  to 
report  to  me  and  receive  instructions.  I  never  received  or 
expected  pay  for  it,  or  considered  myself  as  occupying  any 
position  in  the  Company's  service. 

Qucs.  8. — Do  you  know  anything  of  a  landing  at  Umatilla 
other  than  by  hearsay,  since  your  arrival  on  the  Atlantic 
side? 

Ann. — I  know  it  only  by  hearsay. 

W.  R.  Gibson. 

Washington,  D.  C,  August  4. 
James  W.  Tooley, 

Stenocjrapher, 

Witness  desires  to  make  the  following  explanation:  Since 
giving  the  testimony  be  remembers  having  been  at  Walla- 
Walla'  in  the  year  1855,  the  year  of  the  Indian  war,  where  he 
was  arrested  by  the  Indian  agent  for  attempting  to  remain  in 
the  country,  in  disobedience  of  his  order  for  all  whites  to 

leave  it. 

W.  R.  Gibson. 

District  of  Columbia,  "| 

County  of  Washington,  if 

I;  Nicholas  Callan,  a  notary  public  in  and  for  the  county 

and  District  aforesaid,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


4% 


^   ^^ 


4^ 


^^ 


1.0 


I.I 


11.25  ilii 


lii|2£ 

■50     ^^ 

ly 


2.2 


HI 
u 


■4.0 


2.0 


U   11.6 


■^ 


Fhotographic 

^ScMices 

CarparatJon 


^. 


V 


<«^ 


*, 


'i  J  WIST  MAIN  STRHT 
WUSTIR,N.Y.  MSM 


^ 


\ 


•^  - 


f 


!<^ 


180 


depositions  of  J.  W.  Pcrit  Huntington  and  William  R.  Gibson, 
witnesses  produced  by  and  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  in 
the  matter  of  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against 
the  same,  now  pending  before  the  British  and  American  Joint 
Commission  for  the  adjustment  of  the  same,  were  taken  at  the 
oflSce  of  said  Commission,  No.  355  H  street  north,  in  the  city 
of  Washington,  District  of  Columbia,  and  reduced  to  writing 
by  James  W.  Tooley,  a  stenographer  agreed  upon  by  Caleb 
Cushing,  Esq.,  attorney  for  the  United  States,  and  Edward 
Lander,  Esq.,  attorney  for  said  Company,  beginning  on  the 

day  of  August,  A.  D.  1866,  and  terminating  on  the  4th 

day  of  August,  A.  D.  1866,  according  to  the  several  dates  ap- 
pended to  the  said  depositions,  when  they  were  signed  respect- 
ively. 

I  further  certify  that  to  each  of  said  witnesses,  after  his  ex- 
amination, by  cansent  of  parties,  I  administered  the  following 
oath : 

"You  swear  that  the  deposition  by  you  subscribed,  in  the 
matter  of  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against 
the  United  States  of  America,  contains  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth;  so  help  you  God." 

That,  after  the  same  was  reduced  to  writing,  the  deposition 
of  each  witness  was  carefully  read  and  then  signed  by  him, 

I  further  certify  that  Caleb  Cushing,  Esq.,  and  Edward 
Lander,  Esq.,  were  personally  present  during  the  examination 
and  cross-examination  of  all  of  said  witnesses,  and  the  reading 
and  signing  of  their  depositions. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
affixed  my  notarial  seal  this  4th  day  of  August,  A. 
[l.  s.]    D.  1866. 

N.  Callan,  Notary  Public. 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION 


ON   THE 


HUDSON'S  BAY  AND  TUGET'S   SOUM)  AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES'  CLAIMS. 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay   Compawf 
against  the  United  Staters. 

Deposition  of  Robert  J.  Atkinson. 

Interrogatories  propounded  by  Caleb  dishing,  in  behalf  of  the 

United  States. 

m 

Testimony  of  Robert  J.  Atkinson. 

Robert  J.  Atkinson,  being  duly  sworn  according  to  law,  deposes 
and  says : 

Int.  1. — Please  to  state  your  name  in  full,  your  present 
place  of  residence,  and  your  profession. 

Ans. — Robert  J.  Atkinson;  I  am  temporarily  residing  in 
Washington,  D.  C. ;  my  profession  is  that  of  a  lawyer. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  any  interest  in  the  matter  of  the  claims 
of  the  Hudson'sBay  Company  against  the  United  States  other 
than  as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States? 

Ans. — No,  yir. 

Int.  3. — Have  you  at  any  time  held  the  oflBce  of  Third  Au- 
ditor in  the  Treasury  Department  of  the  United  States;  and, 
if  so,  from  what  day  to  what  day  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  I  was  Third  Auditor  from,  I  believe,  the 
15th  day  of  September,  1854,  and  I  retired  from  the  office,  I 
think,  on  the  19th  day  of  July,  1864. 

Int.  4. — In  a  deposition  made  by  Dougald  Mactavish  in 
behalf  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  it  is  stated,  that  in  the 
years  1855  and  1856,  supplies  were  furnished  by  said  Com- 


182 


pany  for  the  uses  of  volunteers  raised  by  Governors  Curry 
and  Stevens,  Governors  of  the  Territories  of  Oregon  and  Wash- 
ington, on  occasion  of  the  so-called  Yakama  Indian  war,  and 
vouchers  for  such  supplies  obtained  from  the  proper  officers  for 
the  same;  but  in  the  precise  words  of  the  deponent,  "when 
pay  day  came,  for  some  reason,  the  Third  Auditor  of  the  Treas- 
ury at  Washington  cut  down  the  bills  to  the  amount  of  some- 
thing like  thirty  thousand  dollars,  which  sum  remains  unset- 
tled to  this  day."  Have  you  or  not  any  such  knowledge  of 
the  transaction  thus  referred  to  as  to  be  able  to  state  whether 
or  not  you  are  the  person  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Mactavish  as  the 
Third  Auditor  of  the  Treasury  at  Washington  ? 

(All  testimony  in  reference  to  any  claims  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  against  the  Up'ted  States  not  mentioned  or  set 
up  in  their  memorial  objected  to  as  immaterial  and  irrelevant.) 

(Mr.  Cushing  responds  to  this  objection;  says  that  it  is  the 
fault  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company^not  by  the  United  States, 
if  this  foreign  matter  be  introduced  into  the  case,  it  having 
been  introduced  by  that  Company  apparently  to  raise  implica- 
tion or  imputation  of  unjust  treatment  by  the  United  States, 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  as  argument  of  prejudice. 
Therefore  Mr.  Cushing  persists  in  the  interrogatory,  as  involv- 
ing inquiry  strictly  responsive  to  the  matter  thus  introduced 
by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.) 

Ana. — I  can  only  say  I  was  Third  Auditor  of  the  Treasui'y 
at  the  time  the  official  action  referred  to  was  had,  and  of  course 
I  suppose  I  must  be  the  person  Mr.  Mactavish  alluded  to. 

Int.  5. — Have  you  or  not  any  recollection  of  any  such  ac^ 
count  having  been  preferred  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

(The  personal  recollection  of  the  witness  objected  to  on  the 
ground  that  the  records  of  the  office  would  show  the  fact,  had 
such  an  account  been  preferred.)  •  ;  ■ 

(Mr.  Cushing  persists  in  the  question  as  being  an  essential 
link  in  the  identification  of  the  witness  as  being  the  person 
into  whose  hands  the  accounts  officially  came.) 

Ans. — Yes.  I  remember  there  were  various  accounts  em- 
braced in  the  claims  in  the  Indian  wars  in  Washington  and 


183 


Oregon  Territories  presented  in  the  name  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company. 

Int.  6. — On  inspecting  files  of  original  accounts  on  file  in 
the  Treasury  Department,  would  it  or  not  be  in  your  power  to 
identify  the  account  referred  to  by  Mr.  Mactavish? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir.  I  refer  to  the  claims  growing  out  of  the 
Indian  war  in  Washington  and  O''egon  in  1855  and  1856,  and 
which  was  called  here  the  Washington  and  Oregon  Indian  war. 

Int.  7. — How  long  since  have  you  looked  at  or  examined  the 
accounts  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  United 
States  for  supplies  on  account  of  aiy  Indian  war  in  Washing- 
ton and  Oregon  ? 

Ans. — At  the  request  of  Mr.  Gibbs,  I  made  an  examination 
of  those  accounts  one  day  last  week. 

Int.  8. — Please  to  state  whether  or  no  those  were  accounts 
on  which  you  passed  as  Third  Auditor? 

(Objected  to  on  the  ground  that  the  action  in  this  case  was 
official,  and  the  decision  on  claims  is  to  be  found  in  the  records 
in  the  office.) 

(Mr.  Gushing  persists  in  the  question  as  necessary  to  the 
identification  of  this  witness  as  being  the  person  who  passed 
upon  the  accounts  as  Auditor,  that  inquiry  and  nothing  else 
being  contained  in  the  interrogatory,  and  neither  the  original 
accounts  or  any  copy  of  them  affording  any  internal  proof 
that  this  witness  is  that  person.) 

Ans. — They  were. 

Int.  9. — Can  you,  either  at  the  present  time  or  at  an  ad- 
journment, present  an  official  abstract  of  that  account,  to  bo 
made  a  portion  of  your  deposition? 

Ans. — The  accounts  are  not  in  my  possession;  they  are  in 
the  records  of  the  Third  Auditor's  office.  I  have  no  right  to 
call  for  copies  of  them,  but  I  have  no  doubt  the  Third  Auditor 
will  furnish  to  the  Commission  any  copies  or  information  rela- 
tive to  the  accounts,  if  officially  called  upon.  If  the  documents 
are  furnished,  I  have  no  objection  to  their  being  annexed  to  my 
deposition.  ^ 

Int.  10. — It  appears  from  the  account  annexed,  that  the 
total  of  the  claim  preferred  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 


184 


was  $  ,  and  the  amount  allowed  was  $  ,  being  a 

difference  of  $  ;  please  to  state  whether  or  not  you  are 

the  person  who  officially  directed  the  auditing  of  this  account 
and  ordered  the  reduction  which  appears  in  it. 

(The  introduction  of  the  account,  and  all  testimony  in  rela- 
tion to  it,  objected  to  as  immaterial  and  irrelevant.) 

(Mr.  Cushing  persists  in  this  line  of  inquiry,  for  the  reason 
above  stated,  that  it  is  responsive  to  matter  introduced  by  the 
Hud  on's  Bay  Company.  If  Mr.  Lander  does  not  like  it,  he 
can  save  all  trouble  on  the  subject,  both  to  himself  and  the 
United  States,  by  striking  out  from  Mr.  Mactavish's  deposition 
all  that  matter  which  he  now  so  strenuously  insists  is  imper- 
tinent and  unfit  to  c:o  before  the  Commissioners.) 

Ans. — Yes,  sir  ;  I  aui. 

Int.  11. — Please  to  state  whether  or  not  any  accounts  of 
citizens  of  the  United'States  for  similar  supplies,  on  the  occa- 
sion of  the  same  Indian  war,  came  before  you  for  auditing  as 
Third  Auditor. 

(All  objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  they  did. 

I7it.  12. — Please  to  state  whether  or  not,  in  auditing  the 
respective  accounts  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  of 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  any  distinction  as  to  amount  or 
rule  of  allowance  was  made  between  the  two  classes  of  claims  ; 
and  if  so,  whether  such  distinction  was  against  or  in  favor  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

(Objected  to  as  irrelevant.)         , 

Ans. — Of  course,  in  my  official  action,  no  distinction  was 
made  between  claims  presented  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
or  citizens  of  the  United  States.  The  claims  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  were  not  reduced  in  the  same  ratio,  in  the  aggre- 
gate, as  the  claims  of  the  citizens  generally  were  reduced.  The 
reduction  in  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  claims  appears  to 
have  been  less  than  one-third,  whereas,  of  the  whole  amount 
of  claims  as  presented,  growing  out  of  the  war,  less  than  one- 
half  wer«  allowed  and  paid. 

Int.  13. — Please  to  explain  fully  and  explicitly  the  reasons 
and  considerations  which  influenced  you  officially  in  the  de- 


ISl 


cision  whicli  you  came  to,  as  to  the  amount  to  be  allowed  on 
the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  relatively  to  the 
amount  claimed  by  that  Company. 

(The  reasons  and  considerations  governing  an  official  in  a 
quasi  jiuVmhil  capacity,  in  the  discharge  of  an  official  duty, 
objected  to  as  incompetent,  and  the  whole  as  irrelevant.) 

(Mr.  Cushing  persists  in  the  question  on  both  grounds  ;  first, 
the  reasons  and  considerations  on  which  an  official  person  acts, 
yfhether quasi  judicially  or  judicially,  are  always  competent; 
otherwise  it  would  be  quite  superfluous  for  official  nersons 
generally,  and  especially  judges,  to  assign,  as  they  universally 
do  when  expected  to  do,  the  reasons  of  their  decisions,  and  it 
is  more  especially  competent  here,  when  the  official  action  of 
iliis  officer,  and  through  him  the  action  of  his  Government,  are 
impeached  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  If  it  be  compe- 
tent for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  to  complain  of  the  action 
of  Mr.  Atkinson,  then  still  more  is  it  competent  for  Mr.  Atkin- 
son to  assign  good  and  official  reasons  for  his  official  action. 
Secondly,  the  evidence  is  responsive  to  evidence  introduced  by 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.) 

(This  does  not  answer  the  objection,  because,  first,  opinions 
of  judges  are  not  evidence  as  matters  of  fact ;  second,  because 
these  opinions  are  made  and  put  on  file  as  part  of  the  records 
of  the  courts  over  which  they  preside  ;  and  third,  that  in 
this  case  the  opinion  of  the  witness  of  record  is  not  off'ered, 
but  only  testimony  as  to  what  he  now  thinks,  and  his  reasons 
for  decisions  ten  years  old.) 

(Mr.  Cushing  persists  in  the  question.) 

An8. — The  reasons  for  my  official  action  will  be  found  fully 
set  forth  in  Public  Documents,  and  which  arose  under  the  fol- 
lowing circumstances:  The  question  of  payment  of  the  claims 
growing  out  of  Indian  hostilities  in  Washington  and  Oregon 
Territories  in  1855  and  185G  were  presented  to  Congress,  and 
there  referVed  to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  of  the 
House  of  Representatives.  At  the  request  of  the  chairman 
of  the  Committee,  the  papers  connected  with  the  claims,  then 
on  file  in  the  office  of  the  Third  Auditor,  were  examined  by  me, 
and  the  result  of  that  examination  is  contained  in  a  letter  ad- 


186 


(iresscfl  to  lion.  C.  J.  Faulkner,  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Military  AffairH,  dated  January  10,  1859.  (See  Executive 
Document  No.  i")!  of  House  of  Representatives,  Thirty-Fifth 
Congress,  .Secohd  Session.) 

On  the  8th  of  February  following,  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives passcid  a  resolution  directing  another  examination  to 
be  made  by  the  Third  Auditor,  of  the  claims  to  be  made  pre- 
liminary to  a  final  settlement  and  adjustment,  and  to  make 
report  to  the  House  of  Representatives  by  the  first  Monday  in 
December  fullowitig  of  the  amount  respectively  due  to  each 
claimant,  agreeably  to  certain  rules  prescribed  by  the  resolu- 
tion. 

In  pursuance  of  this  resolution,  I  made  another  examina- 
tion of  the  claims,  and  the  results  of  that  examination,  were 
the  reasons  that  governed  my  action,  and  arc  contained  in  an 
official  letter  of  the  7th  of  February,  1860,  addressed  to  Hon. 
William  Pennington,  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
(See  Executive  Document  No.  11,  House  of  Representatives, 
Thirty-Sixth  Congress,  First  Session,) 

At  the  same  session  a  law  was  passed  by  Congress  providing 
for  the  settlement  of  these  claims,  substantially  on  the  basis 
of  my  report,  and  the  awards  made  by  me  were  under  the  au- 
thority an<l  direction  of  that  act  of  Congress. 

(The  whole  of  the  answer  objected  to  as  irrelevant,  and  the 
documents  referred  to  objected  to  further,  as  it  does  not  appear 
that  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  were  presented 
at  this  time,  and  both  of  the  documents  were  made  before  any 
act  of  Congress  authorizing  the  payment  of  the  claims,  or  the 
final  adjudication  of  the  same.) 

Int.  14. — Please  to  state  whether  or  not  the  objection  of  Mr. 
Lander  to  your  answer  is  or  not  founded  on  misconception  of 
facts,  and  if  so,  ploase  to  explain  that  misconception. 

AvH. — The  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  were  em- 
braced in,  and  considered  in  connection  with,  all  the  other 
claims  growing  out  of  those  hostilities  when  the  examinations 
and  reports  referred  to  were  made.  All  these  claims  were  pre- 
sented together;  it  is  true  that,  after  the  passage  of  the  act 
providing  for  their  payment,  the  outstanding  duplicates  in 


187 

the  hands  of  the  original  claimants  or  other  holders  were  re- 
quired to  be  presented,  and  the  final  adjudication  was  then 
made  in  pursuance  of  the  act  of  Congress. 

(Objected  to  as  incompetent,  and  not  best  evidence  of  the 
fact.) 

Int.  15. — Please  to  state  whether  or  not  the  original  docu- 
ments on  file  included  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, as  to  be  hereafter  annexed  to  your  deposition,  show  that 
the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  were  before  you 
when  you  made  your  report. 

Ans. — All  the  claims  of  every  description  in  both  Territo- 
ries, including  those  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  were 
transmitted  by  a  commission  to  the  Department  at  Washing- 
ten,  and  were  before  me  when  the  examinations  referred  to 
were  made.  It  is  proper  to  state  that  there  were  duplicates 
of  these  claims  in  the  possessio:,  of  the  original  claimants  or 
other  holders,  and  these  duplicates  were  required  to  be  sur- 
rendered, so  that  there  might  be  no  evidence  of  claim  out- 
standing when  payment  was  made  by  the  United  States. 

Int.  16. —  Whether  or  not  is  Mr.  Lander  in  error  in  assum- 
ing by  his  objection  that  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany were  not  before  you  oificially  when  you  made  those  two 
reports  ? 

An%. — They  were  before  me  in  the  form  I  have  stated. 

,  Cross- IJxamination. 


Int.  1. — Did  not  your  final  action  and  adjudication  of  the 
claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  for  supplies  furnished 
during  the  Indian  war  take  place  after  the  passage  of  an  act 
of  Congress,  and  after  the  making  of  the  two  reports  that  have 
been  mentioned  in  your  testimony ;  and  is  not  that  adjudica- 
tion and  decision  as  to  the  amount  due  now  of  record  in  the 
Third  Auditor's  Office  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  2. — In  your  answer  to  interrogatory  12  you  say,  "  The 
reduction  in  the  Hudson's  Bay  Conjpany's  claims  appears  to 
have  been  less  than  one-third,  whereas,  of  the  whole  amount 


II  ^ 

'I 
I 


1   I 


188 

of  claims,  as  presented,  growing  out  of  the  war,  less  than  one- 
half  were  allowed  and  paid."  What  were  the  reasons  that 
induced  you  to  uiake  a  less  reduction  in  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company's  claims  than  in  the  others? 

Ana. — The  reasons,  as  far  as  I  can  give  them,  are  generally 
set  out  in  the  reports  before  referred  to.  I  may  say  that  one 
reason,  and  perhaps  the  principal  one  which  occurs  to  nie  now, 
w^as,  that  claims  for  personal  services  rendered  were  reduced 
in  a  greater  ratio  than  claims  for  supplies  furnished.  The 
Hudson's  Bay  Company's  claims  were,  I  think,  exclusively  for 
supplies  furnished;  and  I  think,  furthermore,  that  the  prices 
charged  by  them  were  considered  as  approximating  more  nearly 
to  actual  cash  prices  than  the  claims  of  contractors  or  citizens 
generally  ;  hence  they  were  not  subjected  to  so  great  reduc- 
tion as  many  other  claims  were. 

Int.  3. — Did  you  have  any  authority  to  decide  favorably 
upon  or  reject  any  claim  arising  out  of  the  Indian  war  as  Third 
Auditor  until  the  passage  of  an  act  of  Congress,  passed  subse- 
quent to  your  report  dated  February  7,  1800  ? 

Ans. — No ;  there  was  no  appropriation  by  Congress,  and 
no  officer  of  the  Government  had  any  authority  to  settle  or 
pay  any  of  those  claims  until  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of 
2d  March,  1801. 

Int.  4. — Was  there  any  evidence  submitted  to  you  to  show 
that  the  prices  charged  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  for  the 
supplies  furnished  in  the  Indian  war  were  the  same  as  those 
charged  to  individuals  for  the  same  supplies  at  the  same  time  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  that  any  evidence  was  pro- 
se:; ted  to  me,  except  what  accompanied  the  claims  when  origin- 
ally transmitted  to  the  Department  by  the  Commission. 

Int.  5. — Had  such  evidence  been  submitted  to  you,  would 
you,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  have  allowed  to  the 
Company  the  prices  paid  to  them  by  private  persons  for  the 
same  supplies  at  the  same  time? 

(Mr.  Cushing  objects  to  this  question,  as  hypothetical  in 
form,  and  therefore  incompetent.)        '  •■.,!.'. 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  what  I  would  have  done.  I  would  have 
considered  it.     The  act  authorized  additional  testimony  in 


189 

certain  cases  ;  and  if  conclusive  testimony  liad  bocn  oflTereJ  to 
8how  that  the  prices  allowed  by  me  were  below  the  actual  cash 
prices  of  such  supjdies  at  the  time,  I  have  no  doubt  1  would 
have  ino,  eased  the  allowance. 

Examination-in-Chief  Ilesurned. 


in 


Int.  1. — In  explanation  of  your  answer  to  the  third  cross- 
interrogatory,  please  to  state  whether  the  examination  which 
you  made  of  these  claims  prior  to  the  act  of  March  2,  1801, 
Avas  a  volunteer  examination,  or  an  examination  rt(juired  of 
you  by  competent  public  authority,  and  made  by  you  officially 
in  consequence  thereof. 

Ans. — It  was  not  voluntary  on  my  part,  as  before  stated. 
The  first  examination  was  made  at  the  request  ol  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  Avhich  had  tlie  sub- 
ject under  consideration,  and  the  second  in  obedience  to  a  reso- 
lution of  the  House  of  Representatives,  all  of  which  was  in 
my  official  capacity  as  Third  Auditor  of  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment. 

Int.  2. — Please  to  state  whether  the  act  of  Congress  was  in 
conformity  with,  or  in  contradiction  to,  the  conclusions  of 
your  report. 

(Objected  to,  as  asking  the  opinion  of  the  witness  upon  a 
law.) 

Ans. — The  act  was  as  follows:  "For  the  payment  of  claims 
for  services,  supplies,  transportation,  &c.,  incurred  in  the 
maintenance  of  said  volunteers,  ^2,400,000,  to  be  paid  upon 
the  principal,  and  agreeably  to  the  rates  for  services,  supplies, 
transportation,  &c.,  allowed  and  reported  by  the  Third  Audi- 
tor of  the  Treasury,  in  his  aforesaid  report  of  the  7th  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1860." 

Int.  3. — Please  to  state,  in  explanation  to  answer  to  cross- 
interrogatory  number  five,  whether  or  not  any  particular  cir- 
cumstances existed  at  the  time  of  the  enactment  of  the  act  of 
March  2,  1861,  and  immediately  following  thereon,  which 
might  have  had  a  tendency  to  afi'ect  the  question,  whether 
parties  \rould  put   in  additional   evidence,  or,  witliout  that, 


1 


s 


190 

rcmlily  accept  such  sums  as  the  act  of  Congress  and  your 
report  contcmplafod. 

An8. — I  can  only  say,  that  I  think  it  very  probable  that  tlio 
unscttle<l  condition  of  the  country,  growing  out  of  the  war, 
which  broke  out  immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  act  in 
question,  operated  on  the  minds  of  claimants,  and  induced 
them  to  press  for  payment  at  he  earliest  practicable  moment; 
and  it  was  known  that  the  production  of  additional  testimony 
would  necessarily  cause  some  delay  in  settlement.  Still  it  was 
a  matter  for  claimants  to  determine  whether  or  not  they  would 
present  additional  testimony  or  take  the  amounts  allowed. 

Cross- TJxam ('nation  Resumed. 

Int.  1. — In  your  answer  to  second  interrogatory,  in  reUuttal, 
mention  is  made  of  rates  for  supplies  allowed  and  reported  by 
you  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  March,  1861.  Was 
there  ever  an  opportunity  allowed  to  the  claimants  for  sup- 
plies for  the  Indian  war,  or  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  to 
show  th;  '  these  rates  reported  by  you  would  not  afford  a  fair 
compensation  for  supplies  furnished  before  that  report  was 
made? 

Ann. — I  do  not  think  that  any  test  -nony  was  offered  by  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  during  the  time  of  the  examinations 
and  reports  referred  to,  nor  w^as  there  any  public  notification 
that  such  testimony  might  bo  presented  other  than  the  pub- 
lished proceedings  of  Congress  and  the  known  action  of  the 
Department  thereon.  After  the  passage  of  the  act,  however, 
such  publication  was  made,  and  claimants  were  required,  when 
presenting  their  claims  for  settlement,  to  state  whether  they 
desired  payment  in  accordance  with  the  allowance  made  by  the 
Third  Auditor,  or  whether  they  intended  to  present  additional 
testimony,  with  a  view  of  obtaining  an  additional  allowance. 

hit  2. — Was  not  this  notice  you  speak  of  given  by  circular 
letter,  and  do  you  know  whether  any  letter  was  ever  addressed 
to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  on  this  subject? 

Ans. — My  recollection  is  that  the  circular  notice  referred 
to  was  published  in  the  oflBcial  newspapers  of  both  Oregon  and 


191 

Washington  Territories.     I  do  not  know  tliat  any  Utter  was 
addressed  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  or  to  anybody  else. 

Int.  3. — Was  not  the  sum  of  §2,400,000,  mentioned  in  your 
answer  above,  appropriated  as  jiayment  in  full  for  the  claims 
of  tliat  war,  according  to  the  rates,  and  in  pursuance  of  the 
estimates  made  by  you  of  the  total  amount  due,  and  wotild 
not,  in  case  of  further  amount  being  shown  to  be  due,  by  the 
additional  testimony  mentioned  in  the  act,  another  appro- 
priation have  had  to  be  made,  by  act  of  Congress,  to  satisfy 
such  additional  indebtedness? 

Ann. — The  amount  reported  by  me,  at  the  rates  fixed  for 
supplies,  &o.,  was  ^2,11)3,428  82.  Congress  iiT)propriated 
$2,400,000,  leaving  a  margin  of  a  little  over  !!ii200,'i  0  to  cover 
increased  allowances  to  be  made  by  the  Third  Auditor,  on 
the  production  of  additional  testimony;  hern  ?  no  :idditional 
testimony  was  required  within  that  limitation. 

R.  J.  AiirrNSON. 

Washington  City,  D.  C,  An'imt  0,  1800. 


Tkstimony  or  G.  C.  GAJiitNim. 


(r.  Clinton  Gardner,  being  <Iuly  sworn  according  to  law. 
deposes  and  says : 

Int.  1. — Please  to  state  your  ijame  in  full,  place  of  residence, 
and  occupation. 

Ans. — George  Clinton  Gardner;  residence  is  S;ilem,  Oregon. 
My  profession  is  civil  engineer,  at  present  holding  the  ofiict' 
of  assistant  astronomer  and  surveyor  of  the  Northwest  Bonn- 
dary  Survey. 

Int.  2. — State  whether  or  not  you  have  any  intercut,  except 
as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  in  the  controversy  between 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment. 

Ans. — I  have  not. 
,    '  Int.  3. — When  were  you  appointed  assi£it;uit  astronomer, 


192 


and  have  you  or  lot  held  that  office  from  the  time  of  your 
appointment  to  the  present  day? 

Ans. — I  was  appointed,  I  think,  in  April,  18o7,  and  have 
held  it,  and  do  hold  it  now. 

Int.  4. — Whether  or  not,  in  the  performance  of  your  official 
duties,  you  passed  any  time  in  Washington  Territory  and 
British  Columbia,  and  if  so,  what  time? 

Ans. — I  passed  all  the  time  from  June,  1857,  to  some  time 
in  1801,  Avith  the  exception  of  three  or  four  months  in  the 
latter  part  of  1859  and  18(50,  Avhcn  I  paid  a  visit  to  San  Fran- 
cisco. 

Int.  5. — Whether  or  not  you  have  any  knowledge  of  a  post 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  on  the  river  Kootenay,  or 
Kootanais  ?  If  so,  please  to  describe  the  situation  of  that 
post  relatively  to  rivers  and  to  the  boundary  line. 

Ans. — The  only  knowledge  I  have  of  the  Kootenay  post  is 
that  we  passed  in  August,  1860,  some  log  houses,  which  the 
Indians  told  us  was  the  old  Kootenay  post.  I  don't  remem- 
ber how  far  it  is  from  the  boundary  line;  but  it  is  near  the 
mouth  of  the  Tobacco  river,  where  it  empties  into  the  Koote- 
nay, and  their  position  is  better  shown  on  an  accurate  survey 
that  was  made  of  the  Kootenay  river  south  of  the  boundary. 
These  log  houses  were  on  the  ri^ht  bank  of  the  Tobacco  river 
and  the  left  bank  of  the  Kootenay  river,  in  the  elbow  between 
the  two  rivers. 

(The  statements  of  Indians  objected  to.) 

Int.  6. — How  many  log  buildings  did  you  see  there? 

Ans. — I  saw  the  remains  of  four. 

Int.  7. — State  whether  or  not  of  those  four  buildings  one 
was  a  Catholic  mission  house. 

Ans. — I  do  not  know. 

Int.  8. — Describe,  as  well  as  you  remember,  the  construction 
and  character  of  those  four  buildings. 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  the  construction  of  those  build- 
ings, because  my  attention  was  not  particularly  called  to  it. 
I  passed  them,  without  a  thought  of  remembering  them,  and, 
probably,  the  knowledge  of  those  buildings  I  have  may  be 
what  I  have  gained  from  sketches  I  have  seen  since.     The 


193 


only  thing  I  can  positively  state  is  that  I  passed  four  dilapi- 
dated buildings. 

Int.  9. — Please  to  look  at  that  photograph,  and  state  whether 
you  have  any  knowledge  of  the  origin  of  the  photograph,  in 
whoso  hands  it  now  is;  and  if  in  the  possession  of  the  boundary 
survey,  from  whom  received  by  that  Commission. 

(See  copy  of  the  photograph  hereto  annexed,  marked  A.) 
(The  introduction  of  the  photograph,  now  marked  "Roman 
Catholic  Mission  on  left  bank  of  Kootenay,"  objected  to  as 
incompetent  and  irrelevant.) 

Ans. — The  photograph  was  made  by  the  English  Commis- 
sion, one  of  a  collection  taken  during  their  survey;  copies  of 
most  of  them  have  been  presented  to  the  American  Commis- 
sioner, and  also  a  set  of  them  to  me,  one  of  which  is  a  copy 
of  this  same  photograph,  and  is  the  first  that  I  had  seen  of 
them. 

It\t.  10. — Please  to  state,  after  examining  the  photograph 
for  the  purpose  of  refreshing  your  memory,  whether  you  do 
or  not  now  remember  the  appearance  of  any  one  of  those  four 
buildings  at  Kootenay. 

Ans. — I  can't  say  that  I  do. 

Int.  11. — What  persons,  if  any,  did  you  find  apparently 
occupying  or  in  charge  of  these  buildings? 
Ans. — No  one. 

Int.  12. — Whether  or  not  at  that  time  any  apparent  use 
was  made  of  said  buildings? 
Ans. — None  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Int.  13. — Whether  or  not  you  had  any  occasion,  in  the  per- 
formance of  your  duty  on  the  boundary  line,  to  go  to  the  Koo- 
tenay river,  and  if  so,  what  was  that  occasion? 

Ans. — The  boundary  line  crosses  the  Kootenay ;  and  in 
order  to  find  the  most  practicable  route  for  the  transportation 
of  our  supplies,  I  visited  the  Kootenay  on  a  reconnoisance,  with 
an  assistant  and  with  several  Indians. 

Int.  14. — Whether  or  not  at  or  in  the  vicinity  of  the  build- 
ings of  which  you  h-xve  spoken,  which  you  saw  at  the  junction 
of  the  Kootenay  and  Tobacco  rivers,  you  saw  any  Indians? 
Ans. — I  did  not,  except  those  I  had  belonging  to  my  party. 
13  H 


^l 


I!  ! 


11  m 


I  ii  ill 
.ill  i'li 


I       ! 


ll'  ill 


I  it 

iii' 


! 


I'      i 


1 1 1< 


Ill  <l 


194 

/«^.  15. — Whether  you  have  any  knowledge  of  a  post  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  called  Fort  Colvile? 

Alls. — I  have;  I  have  visited  Fort  Colvile. 

Int.  16. — At  what  time? 

Alls. — Several  times  in  the  early  part  of  1860. 

Int.  17. — On  what  river  is  it  situated,  if  any,  and  how  far 
from  the  boundary  line  of  Washington  Territory. 

Aiis. — It  is  situated  on  the  Columbia  river  and  about  from 
thirty  to  forty  miles  south  of  the  boundary  line. 

Jilt.  18. — State,  if  you  remember,  what  buildings  there  were 
at  that  post. 

Aris. — On  the  north  side  of  the  court-yard  there  were  Store- 
houses, apparently  one  house  or  building;  on  the  east  side  were 
the  quarters  of  the  officer  in  charge.  I  don't  remember  whether 
there  were  small  houses  on  the  court-yard  attached;  I  know 
there  were  on  the  rear  of  his  house.  On  the  south  side  there 
were  houses  for  the  employes;  I  don't  know  how  many.  There 
were  one  or  two  detached  houses  from  these;  I  don't  remem- 
ber their  number. 

Inf.  19. — Of  what  material  was  the  store-houses  constructed, 
and  of  what  size,  as  of  one  or  more  stories? 

A.ns, — It  was  constructed  of  hewn  timber  and  a  story  and  a 
half  hinrh. 

Int.'^lO. — Of  what  were  the  materials,  and  of  what  height 
were  the  quarters  of  the  officers? 

Ans. — The  quarters  of  the  officers  were  of  hewn  timber;  I 
don't  remember  the  height. 

Int.  21. — Whether  there  were  an^  palisades  or  other  enclos- 
ures for  the  post  ? 

Arts. — None  that  I  remember;  the  only  enclosure  that  I 
remember  was  the  corral,  back  of  the  officers'  quarters. 

Jnt.  22. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  photograph  now 
exhibited  to  you,  and  if  so,  in  whose  possession  have  you 
seen  it? 

A7}s. — I  have  seen  that,  or  a  copy  of  it,  in  the  possession  of 
the  American  Commissioner,  presented  to  him  by  the  English 
Commission. 

Int.  2-3. — State  Avhether  or  not  you  have  any  recollection 


mi 


195 

of  the  buildings  purported   to  be   there   represented.     (See 
copy  annexed,  marked  "B.") 

Ans. — I  have  a  very  distinct  recollection  of  these  buildings. 
The  view  shows  the  rear  of  the  officers'  quarters  at  Fort  Col- 
vile,  with  the  enclosure  of  which  I  have  spoken,  which  forms 
the  corral  or  back  yard. 

Int.  24. — State  whether  or  not  you  have  ever  visited  a  post 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  called  Fort  Okanagan  or 
Okinakaine. 

Ar.j. — I  have  ;  I  think  it  was  in  the  early  part  of  18(31.  It 
was  on  the  occasion  of  my  making  a  reconnoisanco  of  the 
river  Columbia  from  Fort  Colvile  to  Fort  Walla-Walla. 

Int.  25. — State,  if  you  remember,  the  character  of  the 
buildings  there. 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  the  character  of  the  buildings. 
To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  I  think  they  were  of  hewn 
timber.  They  were  occupied  by  Indians,  and  in  charge  of 
one  half-breed  or  full  Indian,  I  don't  know  which,  and  were 
in  a  dilapidated  condition. 

■Int.  20. — Was  there  any  enclosed  land  at  or  about  the  fort  ? 

Ans. — None  that  I  remember. 

Int.  27. — If  anything  material  to  the  subject  of  these  in- 
quiries occurs  to  you,  which  has  not  been  specifically  called 
for  by  interrogatory,  please  to  state  it. 

Ans. — I  don't  know  there  is  anything. 

Cross-Examination. 


Int.  1. — Have  you  any  knowledge  whatever  of  what  those 
buildings  were  that  you  saw  at  the  mouth  of  Tobacco  Creek, 
except  from  statements  made  to  you  by  Indians? 

Ans. — I  can't  say  that  I  have,  though  my  impression  was 
that  I  also  have  heard  the  Hudson's  Bay  agent  at  Kootenay 
speak  of  those  buildings  as  their  former  trading-post.  I  am 
not  sure  whether  the  agent  was  Linklighter  or  not.  Link- 
lighter  was  there  upon  one  visit  I  made  to  a  new  post  on  the 
Kootenay,  which  was  nothing  but  a  small  house  north  of  the 
boundary. 


196 


liJUi 


'„■  !l 


Int.  2. — Have  you  anything  more  than  a  mere  impression 
of  some  such  statement  being  made  to  you  by  somebody, 
without  any  certainty  of  whom  the  person  was  ? 

Ans. — I  have  not.  The  general  belief  was  that  that  was 
the  former  trading-post,  and  it  was  so  accepted. 

Int.  3. — I  believe  you  have  stated,  in  your  examination-in- 
chief,  that  you  saw  these  buildings  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Kootenay  river  but  once,  and  that  merely  ih  passing  them  ? 

Ans. — I  stated  that  I  had  seen  them  in  passing  them  ;  but 
I  havQ  seen  them  since  then,  and  upon  my  return  from  the 
Rocky  Mountains  I  have  also  seen  them. 

Int.  4. — Did  you  give  more  paj-ticular  attention  to  them  the 
second  time  than  you  did  the  first  time? 

Ans. — No,  sir,  I  did  not.  The  first  time  I  passed  I  observed 
them  as  a  matter  of  curiosity,  and  the  second  time,  knowing 
they  were  ti»ere,  I  had  no  curiosity  to  see  them.  We  encamped 
there  two  or  three  days  on  our  return,  but  my  attention  was 
not  particularly  called  to  the  houses ;  I  saw  them. 

Int.  5. — How  long  were  you  at  Eort  Colvile  at  the  time 
you  speak  of? 

Ans. — I  visited  Fort  Colvile  three  or  four  times ;  I  don't 
remember  how  often ;  the  longest  time  I  stayed  there  was 
over  night. 

Int.  G. — Did  you  pay,  at  any  time  when  you  visited  there, 
such  particular  attention  to  the  buildings  as  to  enable  you  to 
describe  them  correctly,  or  was  your  observation  of  them  and 
of  the  post  that  of  a  casual  visitor  ? 

Ans. — My  observation  was  not  such  as  to  describe  them 
accurately;  yet  my  observations  were  not  casual,  being  at  ail 
times  desirous  of  observing  the  style  of  building,  in  visiting 
those  places,  at  the  different  posts  we  visited,  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  the  best  style  for  our  own  buildings,  which  we 
frequently  had  to  construct. 

Int.  7. — You  have  spoken  of  the  north  side  of  the  court- 
yard. Were  tiiere  not,  on  that  side,  two  store-houses,  one 
sixty  feet  by  twenty,  one  forty  by  eighteen  feet,  built  of 
square  timber,  one  story  and  a  half  high,  with  two  floors,  and 
with  shingled  roofs  ?     .  *  ..,,.. 


197 


Ans. — I  don't  remember  the  exact  details  of  the  ^c  buildings. 
As  I  have  stated  in  my  evidence,  I  did  not  know  whether 
there  were  two  buildings  or  not. 

Int.  8. — Were  not  the  officers'  houses,  of  which  you  have 
spoken  of,  on  one  side,  a  story  and  a  half  high,  ceiled  inside 
with  tongued  and  grooved  boards,  with  two  floors,  three  chim- 
neys, shingled  roofs,  sixty  feet  long  by  eighteen  feet  wide? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  the  details  of  that  building;  I 
think  it  was  ceiled  on  the  inside  of  the  first  story. 

Int.  9. — Was  there,  at  the  time  you  were  there,  a  large  frame 
dwelling-house,  fifty  by  twenty-three  feet,  story  and  a  half 
high,  with  two  floors,  clapboarded  and  shingled,  plastered  in- 
side, what  is  called  hard-finished,  with  two  large  quartz-rock 
chimneys,  situated  on  one  side  of  the  court-yard? 

Ana. — I  don't  remember  it. 

Int.  10. — Do  you  not  recollect  what  might  be  called  a  back 
family  house,  of  square  timber,  boarded  roof,  lined  with  cot- 
ton cloth,  with  two  floors,  about  twenty-two  by  fifteen  feet, 
together  with  a  kitchen  of  the  same  size,  with  shingle  roof, 
with  quartz-rock  chimney? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  those  buildings  ;  there  were  back 
buildings  to  the  officers'  quarters ;  I  don't  remember  the  de- 
tails. 

Int.  11. — Do  you  recollect  a  square  timber  bastion,  Avith 
port-holes,  two  stories  high  ? 

Ana. — I  think  I  do ;  I  think  it  was  to  the  west  of  the  build- 
ings spoken  of. 

Int.  12. — Was  there  not  a  blacksmith  shop  and  carpenter 
shop  and  a  barn,  framed  and  boarded,  about  sixty  by  thirty 
feet "  ^ 

Ana. — I  don't  remember  any  shops,  but  think  there  was  a 
barn. 

Int.  13. — Do  you  recollect  the  size  of  the  corral  or  yard,  of 
which  you  have  spoken? 

Ana. — I  do  not ;  the  yard  I  speak  of  was  in  the  rear  of  the 
officers'  quarters. 

Int.  14. — Does  this  photograph,  marked  "B,"  referred  to  in 
your  deposition,  show  anything  more  than  merely  the  rear  of 


I  ! 


» 

what  you  call  the  officers'  quarters  at  Fort  Colvilc ;  and  does 
it  show  cither  side  of  the  court-yard  of  the  fort,  or  the  build- 
ings thereon  ? 

Ans. — It  shows  the  rear  of  the  officers'  quarters,  with  the 
buildings  attached,  and  the  gable-end  of  the  store-house,  sit- 
uated on  the  north  side  of  the  court-yard. 

Int.  If). — Would  you  compare  your  recollection  of  the  build- 
ings at  Fort  Colvile  with  the  recollection  of  a  person  under 
whose  charge  nearly  all  the  buildings  of  the  fort  had  been  re- 
built, and  was  a  continuous  resident  of  the  place  from  1852  to 
1865  ? 

Ans. — No ;  I  will  not  compare,  because  I  have  not  the 
means  of  comparison. 

Int.  IG. — Where  your  recollection  differs  from  that  of  the 
person  mentioned  in  the  former  interrogatory,  would  you  not 
yourself  believe  his  recollection  to  be  more  accurate  and  dis- 
tinct? '       •     ■ 

Ans. — There  is  no  person  individually  mentioned  in  the 
former  interrogatory,  and  I  would  not  draw  any  comparison 
between  my  recollection  and  that  of  any  other  person.    , 

Eamination-in-Chief  Resumed. 


Int.  1. — Whether  or  not,  at  some  time  subsequent  to  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Fort  Colvile, 
the  British  Boundary  Commission  resided  for  a  time  at  Fort 
Colvile,  requiring  especial  accommodations  to  be  provided  for 
them  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  whether  the  British  Boundary  Commis- 
sion resided  at  the  fort  or  not  before  the  erection  of  their  own 
quarters.  They  were  encamped  in  that  vicinity,  and  after- 
wards built  quarters  some  distance  to  the  north  of  Fort  Col- 
vile. 

G.  Clinton  Gardner. 
Washington  City,  D.  C, -4m^w8<  10, 1866. 


199 


Examination-in- Chief  Resumed,  February  15,  1867. 

Int.  1. — Look  at  these  photographs  now  exhibited  to  you, 
and  marked  Copy  of  "A"  and  Copy  of  "B,"  and  say  whether 
they  are  correct  copies  of  the  photographs  which  were  marked 
"A"  and  "B,"  and  shown  you  at  the  time  you  gave  your  an- 
sAvcrs  to  interrogatories  9  and  14  of  your  direct  examination. 

Ans. — They  are. 

G.  Clinton  Gardner. 

February  15,  1867. 

Examination  of  George  Clinton  Gardner  Resumed,  this  2Bd  of 
Aiml,  1867,  at  the  City  of  Washington,  D.  C. 

Int.  1. — What  buildings  were  erected  by  the  Northwest 
Boundary  Commission  at  Colvile  depot  ? 

(The  above  question  objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Ans. — Two  officers'  quarters  of  hewed  timber,  a  story  and 
a  half  high  ;  one  large  mens'  quarters,  of  rough  logs,  chinked 
with  small  logs ;  two  shops,  under  one  roof  of  rough  logs, 
built  in  the  same  manner ;  one  stable  with  loft,  capable  of 
stabling  twelve  animals,  with  large  corral  in  the  rear.  The 
officers'  buildings  were  each  of  them  double  houses.  These 
buildings  were  built  in  the  fall  of  1859. 

Int.  2. — What  was  the  cost  of  these  buildings  ? 

Ans. — These  buildings  were  built  by  the  Boundary  Survey, 
and  afterwards  turned  oVer  to  the  Quartermasters'  Depart- 
ment of  the  army ;  and  they  allowed  for  the  buildings  their 
actual  cost,  as  invoiced  by  the  Boundary  Survey  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner : 

"Invoice  of  Quarters  turned  over   by  Archibald   Campbell, 
Commissioner  Northwest  Boundary  Survey,  to   Brevet 
'    Major  Pinkney  Lugenbeel,  9th  United  States  infantry, 
at  Fort  Colvile,  Washington  Territory,  August,  1861. 

Cost  of  materials  and  labor,  as  per  voucher  marked 
A,  voucher  2,  Abr.  G.,  4th  Qr.,  '59    -     -     -     -  $2,075.70 


200 


Cost  of  materials,  as  per  voucher  marked  B,  voucher 

8,  Abr.  G.,  2d  Q.,  'CO 392.66 

Cost  of  labor,  as  per  voucher  marked  C      -     -     -        930.00 
See  receipts  of  Major  P.  Lugenbeel,  U.  S.  Army, 
marked  D. 


P,398.36 

Archibald  Campbell, 
Com.  N.  W.  Boundary  Survey  J" 

The  two  buildings  for  officers'  quarters  were  commenced 
before  the  different  parties  of  the  Boundary  Survey  arrived  at 
Colvilo  Depot,  by  the  (luartermaster  of  that  post,  and  he  kept 
an  accurate  account  of  everything  expended  upon  them, 
which  he  charged  the  Boundary  Survey  for,  as  per  following 
voucher,  referred  to  in  previous  invoice  as  marked  A. 

"  The  United  States  to  2d  Lieutenant  William  B.  Hughes,  9th 
Infantry,  A.  A.  Q.  M.,  Br. 
*'  On  account  of  Northwest  Boundary  Survey  for  the  cost  of 
the  following  materials,  and  the  hire  of  mechanics  employed 
in  the  construction  of  two  log-buildings,  for  the  use  of  the 
U.  S.  Boundary  Commission,  as  winter  quarters  and  offices, 
viz  : 


(( 


For  40,000  shingles,  at  $6  per  M 

5,560  feet  sided  timber,  at  6c.  per  foot 
1,406    "  square     "      at  10c.    " 
12,000    "  lumber,  at  $28  per  M 
21  doors,  at  $4  each 
20  windows,  at  $4  each 
800  lbs.  nails,  at  19c.  per  lb    - 
18,000  brick,  at  $10  per  M 

20  barrels  lime,  at  $2  per  barrel 
17  door-locks,  at  $2.50  each 
23  prs.  butts  and  screws 
7  latches  and  bolts 


$240.00 

333.60 

141.60 

336.00 

84.00 

80.00 

152.00 

180.00 

40.00 

42.50 

3.00 

1.00 


il 


For  Cost  of  building  chimneys,  plastering  and  lay- 
ing hearths 102.00 

Hire  of  extra-duty  men  for  20  days,  at  50c.  each 

per  day 100.00 

Hire  of  four  citizen  carpenters,  20  days,  at 
$3  per  day 240.00 

,  •  S2,075.70 

"  Received  at  Colvile  Depot,  of  Archibald  Campbell,  Commis- 
sioner N.  W.  Boundary  Survey,  this  21st  day  of  December, 

1859,  two  thousand  and  seventy-five  dollars  and  seventy  cents 
in  full,,  of  the  above  account. 

Signed  duplicates. 

(Signed,)  Wm.  B.  Hugiie!?, 

$2,075.70  2d  Lieut.  9th  Infanty,  A.  A.  Q.  31. 

"I  certify  that  the  above  account  is  correct ;  that  the  items 
charged  therein  were  required  and  furnished  on  account  of 
the  service  above  mentioned,  and  that  the  same  were  necessary 
therefor,  the  buildings  having  been  constructed  under  my 
supervision,  with  materials  furnished  by  Q.  M.  Dept.  U.  S.  A. 
"(Signed,)  P.  Lugenbeel, 

"  J5y«.  Maj.,  Oapt.  9th  Inf.,  QonCd.  Colvile  Depot.'' 

The  voucher  marked  "B,"  as  per  invoice,  gives  the  cost  of 
materials  used  principally  upon  the  out-buildings,  consisting 
of  mens'  quarters,  shops,  and  stables,  previously  mentioned, 
and  are  given  as  follows  : 

The   United  States  to  2d  Lieutenant  William  B.  Hughes,  9th 
Infantry,  A.  A.  Q.  M. 

On  account  of  Northwest  Boundary  Survey,  for  the  follow- 
ing Quartermaster's  stores,  purchased  from  the  1st  of  January, 

1860,  to  June  20,  1860,  viz : 

8,573  ft.  lumber,  at  $30  per  M,  $257.19 ;  4  M  shin- 
gles, at  $6  per  M,  $24.00         ....   $281.19 
1  pr.  window-sash,  $4.00;  2  door-locks  at  $2.50       -         9.00 


T^ 


I 


I 


ill 


1 


202 

12  pr.  butts  at  26c.  each,  33.12;  5  pr.  hooks  and 

hin<,'c,s,  at  70c.  each,  $3.r>0        ....  6.62 

2  pr.  strap-hingos,  at  62Ac.,  $1.25;  1  door-bolt,  45c.  1.70 

269  lbs.  cut  nails,  at  35c.  pr.  lb.      -        -        -         -  94.15 

$392.66 


Which,  toi>other   with  the  voucher  marked   "C,"   given   as 
follows : 

"  Account  of  labor  performed  in  December,  1859,  and  Janu- 
ary, 18G0,  by  employes  of  the  Northwest  Boundary  Sur- 
vey, on  the  buildings  at  Colvilc  depot : 

3  men,  1  month  at  850  each  per  month       ...     $150 

4  "     1         "        $45    "  "  ...       180 
15     "     1         "       $40    "          "             ....      600 


$930 


"I  certify  that  the  labor,  as  stated  above,  was  expended 
upon  the  winter  quarters  of  the  Northwest  Boundary  Survey 
at  Colvilc  depot. 

"G.  Clinton  Gardner, 

^^Amst.  Astr.  jf  Surveyor.'' 
Gives  the  entire  cost  of  those  buildings. 

(The  whole  of  the  above  ansAver  objected  to  as  irrelevant 
and  incompetent.  The  statements  or  writings  of  other  per- 
sons than  the  witness  also  objected  to  for  the  same  reason, 
and  the  papers  introduced  and  the  calculations.) 

Int.  3. — Would  the  materials  employed  in  erecting  these 
buildings  cost  private  individuals  more  or  less  than  it  cost  the 
Boundary  Commission? 

Ans. — I  should  think  the  materials  used  in  these  buildings 
would  cost  private  individuals  about  the  same.  The  only  dif. 
fercnce  in  cost  would  be  in  the  labor,  which,  I  think,  would  not 
exceed  ^500.  The  doors  and  windows,  and  all  the  hardware* 
were  transported  there,  and  probably  at  a  greater  expense 
than  private  individuals  could  have  transported  them. 


203 


Int.  4. — "What  do  you  estimate  it  would  have  cost  private 
individuals  to  have  erected  these  buihlings  in  1859? 

Ai^s. — From  the  data  1  have,  I  should .  estimate  it  at 
^3,880.J}0.  The  cost  of  material  and, labor,  as  given  in  pre- 
ceding voucher,  Avill  be  us  follows : 

Cost  of  material  for  officers'  quarters     -     -  ^1,735.70 

Cost  of  labor  for  officer's  quarters,  as  follows : 
For  carpenters  ...  -  -  ^240 

Extra-duty  mens'  labor,  reduced  to  citizen 

labor  at  %\.^0  per  day,  being  200  days     -     300 
Rations  for  above  laborers,  280,  at  30c.    -   -       84 


Cost  of  officers'  quarters         _  .         - 

Cost  of  materials  on  out-buildings 
Cost  of  labor             "                            -        - 
Cost  of  rations  for  above  laborers,  660,  at 
30c.  per  ration 

Cost  of  out-buildings        -        -        .        . 


024.00 


^2,3ry.).70 


392.66 
930.00 

198.00 
$1,520.66 


Int.  5. — How  did  the  buildings  erected  by  the  Northwest 
Boundary  Survey,  at  Colvile  Depot,  whose  cost  you  have  just 
estimated,  compare  in  value  with  those  occupied  by  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  at  Fort  Colvile,  in  1859? 

Arts. — From  what  I  remember  of  the  buildings  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Fort  Colvile,  I  should  think  they 
were  not  more  than  twice  as  extensive,  and  probably  of  not 
more  than  double  the  value.  I  would  not  exchange  on  any 
higher  terms. 

(All  the  foregoing  questions  and  answers  objected  to  as  in- 
competent and  irrelevant.) 

Int.  6. — Have  you  ever  followed  any  of  the  brigade  trails 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  what  was  Washington 
Territory  ? 

Ans. — Yes ;  I  have  been  over  parts  of  the  trail,  between 
Colvile  and  Fort  Hope,  on  Fraser  river. 

Int.  7. — What  was  the  character  of  this  trail  ? 


11 ''  i  I' 


204 

Arts. — It  was  a  broad  road  way,  through  the  portions  of  tho 
country  not  timbered,  and  through  the  timbered  portions 
opened  sufficient  to  allow  their  packs  to  pass.  Tho  brigade 
trail  around  the  Kalespelm  Lake,  which  is  part  of  tho  brigade 
trail  from  Colvile  to  Fhit-IIead  trading-post,  follows  the  water's 
edge,  and  is  impassable  at  high-water.  The  most  of  these 
brigade  trails  follow  old  Indian  trails,  with  but  little  improve- 
ment upon  them. 

Int.  8. — What  do  you  estimate  would  be  the  average  cost 
per  mile  of  these  trails? 

Ans. — From  the  cost  of  the  trails  that  we  opened  in  carry- 
ing on  our  work,  I  should  judge  these  trails  did  not  cost  as 
much  as  ours,  and  the  estimated  cost  of  a  portion  of  our  trail 
across  the  Cascade  Mountains  is  about  $20  per  mile. 

Cro88-Examination  tins  April  30,  18G7. 

Int.  1. — At  what  time  were  you  at  Fort  Colvile  ? 

Ans. — In  March  or  April,  1861. 

Int.  2. — How  long  were  you  there  at  that  visit,  and  did  you 
go  to  the  Company's  post? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  whether  I  went  to  the  Company's 
post  or  not  upon  that  occasion.  I  was  at  the  post  a  few  days 
previous. 

Int.  3. — Was  there  any  difference  in  the  buildings  at  the 
post  at  the  time  you  first  saw  them,  and  at  tho  date  of  your 
last  visit? 

Ans. — No  marked  change  that  I  observed. 

Int.  4. — Had  any  of  the  buildings  been  rebuilt? 

Ans. — I  don't  think  any  of  them  had. 

Int.  5. — How  many  buildings  were  there  at  Fort  Colvile, 
within  the  square  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  what  you  would  call  the  square ;  there 
was  but  three  sides  when  I  was  there.  On  the  north  side 
were  store-houses,  my  impression,  under  the  same  roof;  and 
on  the  east  side  were  the  officers'  quarters,  with  an  extension 
to  the  north,  if  I  remember ;  on  the  south  side  were  two  or 
three  small  houses  for  employes. 


205 


Int.  G. — Is  that  tlio  best  and  most  accurate  description  that 
you  can  give  of  the  buihlings  at  the  Hudson's  Day  Company's 
post  at  Colvile? 

Attn. — No;  it  is  only  the  buiUlings  fronting  or  facj  ig  the 
court-yard  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  post. 

Int.  7. — How  far  was  the  Company's  post  at  Colvile  from 
the  IJoundury  Commission's  quarters,  which  you  have  spoken 
of? 

Ann. — About  seventeen  miles,  by  the  road. 

Int.  8. — How  far  from  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  post 
were  the  buildings  of  the  British  Boundary  Commission? 

An%. — Between  one  and  two  miles. 

Int.  0. — Were  these  buildings  erected  for  the  accommoda- 
tion of  the  British  Boundary  Connrission  during  the  same 
winter  that  the  American  Commission  pasiicd  at  their  quar- 
ters ? 

Ann. — Yes  ;  but  no*  at  the  same  time  that  ours  were  erected; 
they  were  built  afterwards,  and  I  visited  them  first  in  the  win- 
ter of  18(50  and  18G1. 

Int.  10.  —How  did  they  compare  with  the  buildings  of  the 
American  Commission,  in  number,  size,  material,  construction, 
and  finish? 

Ans. — First,  as  regards  to  number,  they  Averc  more  numer- 
ous ;  and  as  regards  size,  they  were  not  as  large ;  in  regard 
to  material,  it  was  about  the  same,  I  think.  They  probably 
were  not  constructed  with  the  same  care,  and  not  as  well  fin- 
ished. .       '  . 

Int.  11. — You  have  compared  the  value  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company's  buildings  at  Colvile  with  that  of  the  value  of 
the  American  Boundary  Commission  at  Colvile.  Will  you  now 
state  the  values  of  the  American  Boundary  Commission  build- 
ings, and  the  British  Boundary  Commission  buildings  ? 

Am. — The  British  Boundary  Commiss'on  buildings  were 
more  numerous  than  the  American  Boundary  Commission 
buildings,  and  were  worth,  I  should  think,  three  times  as  much. 

Int.  12. — Do  you  not  know  that  Hiram  Field  was  paid  the 
sum  of  $20,000  for  erecting  the  buildings  of  the  British  Bound- 
ary Commission? 


'   vrr 


li  :! 


206 

Ans. — No ;  I  did  not  know  that  Tliram  FleM  was  paid  that 
amount;  I  understood  he  had  the  contract  for  building  them. 

Int.  pi. — Was  there  three  times  as  ranch  lumber  and  other 
materials  used  in  the  construction  of  the  British  Boundary 
Commission  buihlings  as  in  those  of  the  American? 

Anf). — I  should  think  there  was. 

Int.  14. — Were  you  employed  in  any  way  in  the  erection  of 
the  buildings  of  the  American  Boundary  Commission,  the  cost 
of  which  you  have  detailed? 

Ans. — I  was  employed  after  my  arrival  at  Colvile  from  the 
field  ;  and  in  order  to  expedite  the  work,  the  men  of  the  differ- 
ent parties  were  also  placed  at  Avork  upon  them. 

Int.  15. — AVas  tli'  •  labor  charged  in  estimating  the  cost  of 
the  buildings  ? 

An>'. — Yes;  as  per  voucher  marked  "C,"  previously  re- 
ferred to. 

Int.  IG. — Whntdocs  voucher  marked  "  C"  contain? 

Ahs. — Voucher  marked  "  C"  is  a  certificate  of  labor  placed 
upon  those  buildings  by  tho  employes  of  the  Boundary  Sur- 
vey. 

Int.  17. — Was  there  no  other  labor  placed  on  these  buildings 
by  the  members  of  the  Boundary  Commission  than  that  men- 
tioned in  voucher  "  C"  ? 

Ans. — Tiiere  was  other  labor  placed  on  those  buildings,  as 
charged  in  voucher  marked  ''  A." 

Inf.  18. — Do  you  recollect  the  price  of  labor,  at  that  time,  in 
Colvile  Valley? 

Ans. — Yes ;  the  price  of  labor  wns  the  same  as  given  in 
voucher  "  C." 

Int.  10. — Was  not,  at  this  time,  Colvile  and  its  vicini'ty  i'ull 
of  miners  and  prospectors,  seeking  to  pass  the  winter,  many 
of  whom  Aveve  glad  to  be  employed  to  procure  food  and  shelter 
for  tho  winter  ? 

^1/KS'. — There-  were  a  good  many  that  we  could  have  cm- 
ployed;  but  they  were  not  willing  to  remain  with  us  the  fol- 
lowing season,  which  we  required  of  every  employe,  before  we 
consented  to  keep  them  during  the  winter.     Some  that  were 


207 


discharged  upon  going  into  winter-quarters  returned  to  our 
employ,  in  the  spring,  at  the  same  wages. 

Int.  20. — Is  not  your  own  personal  knowledge  of  the  cost  of 
these  buildings  confined  to  knowledge  of  the  number  of  men 
of  the  Boundary  Commission  employed,  and  the  price  paid 
them;  and  is  not  the  rest  of  your  knowledge  of  the  cost  de- 
rived from  inspection  of  vouchers  and  certified  accounts  or  in- 
voices read  off  by  you  and  copied  into  your  answer  to  2d 
interrogatory  to  your  examination-in-chicf  in  this  case? 

Alls. — My  knowledge  of  the  cost  of  those  buildings  is  from 
the  amount  of  labor  placeil  upon  them  by  the  cniployos  of  the 
Boundary'-  Commission,  together  with  the  cr-st  of  material  and 
labor  placed  upon  them  by  portions  of  t'.'.o  escort  employed, 
as  certified  to  b^'  I\Iajor  Lugcnbeel. 

Int.  21. — Is  your  knowledge  of  the  material  and  values 
mentioned,  and  the  labor  charged  in  voucher  marked  "A," 
introduced  into  vour  testimonv,  purportinL!'  to  be  si'j;ned  bv 
P.  Luc-enbocl,  Brevet  Maior,  derived  from  the  account  itself, 
and  the  certificate  'i 


Ans. — ]\Iy  knov,-lcda,c  of  the  amouu 


t  of 


nmternil  am 


1  lab 


or 


is  partly  from  tlie  account  and  partly  from  tlie  results  of  that 
material  and  laljor.  My  knowledge  of  tlie  value  of  the 
material  and  labor  is  from  the  certificate. 

Int.  22. — Is  your  knowledge  of  tlio  material  fnrni^lied,  and 
the  prices  i^harg.'d  i.i  voucher  "B,"  derived  from  an  inspec- 
tion of  the  document  itself? 

Ans. — Partly  fi\na  the  inspection  of  the  voucher  itself,  and 
partly  from  the  inspection  of  the  materials,  as  nearly  as  I  re- 
member them. 

Int.  20. — Is  not  vour  knowlediio  of  the  price  of  these  art!- 
cles  derived  entirely  from  the  voucher  itself? 

Ans. — Yc!-  ;  because  there  was  no  otiier  price  paiil  for  them 
than  that  charged  in  the  voucher. 

Int.  24. — Did  you  pay  for  these  articles  yourself,  or  do  you 
know  that  they  were  paid  for,  except  through  the  inspection 
of  this  voucher  ? 

Ans. — I  ('id  not  pay  for  them  myself,  and  the  receipt  to 
the  voucher  is  the  only  evidence  I  have  of  payment. 


m 


ii 


t  '"it" 


m  ]\m 


208 

Int.  25. — How  many  officers  and  men  were  employed,  on  an 
average,  on  the  Boundary  Commission  -when  at  work  in  the 
field? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember;  I  should  judge  about  sixty. 

Int.  26. — IIow  many  companies  of  soldiers  were  employed 
as  an  oscort  and  guard  for  the  Commission? 

Ans. — On  tlio  western  slope  of  the  Cascades  there  was  one 
company  of  infantry.  To  the  east  of  the  Cascades  there  was 
four  companies  of  infantry,  Avho  established  a  military  depot 
at  Colvile  Depot,  sending  detachments  sufficient  to  guard  and 
protect  the  parties  [tiiat]  were  at  work  in  the  field. 

Int.  27. — What  escort  did  the  British  Commission  nave  ? 

Ans. — The  Englisl  Commission,  I  believe,  liad  sappers  and 
miners  as  their  escort,  as  well  as  to  do  the  work  ;  the  number 
I  do  not  know. 

Int.  28. — How  many  companies  were  there  at  Colvile  Depot 
at  the  time  the  buildings  of  the  American  Boundary  Com- 
mission wore  begun  ? 

Ans. — Two  companies  of  infantry,  I  believe. 

Int.  29. — State,  if  you  know,  what  was  the  cost  of  bring- 
ing the  Company's  soldiers  to  Fort  Colvile,  and  maintaining 
them  there  while  acting  as  guard. 

Ans. — I  don't  know.  • 

G.  Clinton  Gardner. 


Deposition  of  Marcus  A.  Reno,  a  witness  examined  in  the 
city  of  Washington,  at  request  and  in  behalf  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  matter  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany against  the  United  States,  Caleb  Cushing  appear- 
ing as  counsel  for  the  United  States,  j  nd  Edward  Lander 
for  the  said  Company,  sworn  before  Nicholas  Callan,  a 
notary  public  in  and  for  the  county  of  Washington,  Dis- 
ti'ict  of  Columbia. 


Testijmony  of  Marcus  A.  Reno.  '   ' 

Int.  1. — State  your  name,  rank  in  the  army,  post  or  station. 
Ans. — Marcus  A.  Reno ;  Captain  of  1st  cavalry,  and  Bre- 


209 


vet  Colonel  in  the  United  States  Army;    my  regular  station 
is  Fort  BoLsb,  Idaho  Territory. 

Int.  2. — Have  you,  at  any  time,  been  on  duty  at  the  post 
of  Fort  Boise? 

Ans. — I  have,  at  some  time  heretofore,  hcen  acquainted 
with  Fort  Boise,  a  post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Conipan}'.  I  was 
there  first  in  the  summer  of  18a9;  there  tuico  tl:at  summer. 
I  was  tlierc  four  times  in  the  summer  of  18G0;  was  there  in 
the  capacity  of  a  subaltern  in  the  1st  dragoons,  that  was 
scouting  along  the  emigrant  route  in  that  country'.  The  first 
time  I  was  there  a  day  and  night,  the  second  time  I  spent 
about  three  days  there,  in  the  summer  of  18G0.  I  camped 
there  two  weeks  the  first  time,  the  second  time  I  was  there 
about  two  days.  Fort  Boise,  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
was  situated  on  the  right  bank  of  tho  Snake  river,  fifteen  or 
twenty  miles  below  the  mouth  of  Bois(5  river;  the  present 
])ost,  held  by  the  United  States,  is  on  the  Boise  river,  about 
thirty  miles  above  its  mouth.  The  Snake  river  is  the  main 
river ;  the  Boiso  is  tho  branch  river.  Am  not  certain  as  to 
the  distances ;  they  are  about  the  distances  above  stated. 

Int.  3. — State  whether  you  noted,  with  more  or  less  particu- 
larity, the  condition  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  post  at  Fort  Boise. 

An.'^. — I  took  notice,  with  some  particularity,  of  the  condf- 
tioii  of  Fort  Boise  at  the  time  of  my  first  visit  there.  I  took 
the  dimensions  of  the  building,  and  noted  the  condition  of  the 
country  back  of  it,  in  reference  to  pasturage  for  tho  animals 
of  our  command.  I  kept  a  journal  regularly  every  day.  I 
reported  the  rosult  of  my  observations  to  the  commanding 
ofiiccr  on  my  return  to  camp. 

Int.  4. — Please  to  describe  the  character  and  condition  of 
the  buildings  there. 

Ans. — The  buildings  were  pretty  much  in  ruins ;  one  was 
quite  so,  the  other  was  simply  four  walls  that  had  been  cov- 
ered with  a  single  slant  roof;  the  face  looking  up  the  river 
seemed  to  have  been  arranged  for  defence,  Indian  defence; 
this  is  what  I  understood  to  be  called  a  bastion.  I  only  saw 
two  buildings  there.  The  whole  locality  was  entirely  over- 
grown with  wild  rye  grass,  very  tall  grass. 
1-t  H 


il ' 


210 

Int.  5. — Were  the  buildings  occupied  or  deserted? 

Ans. — These  buildings  -were  in  a  deserted  condition;  no  in- 
dications of  any  one  having  been  there  for  some  time. 

Inf.  G. — iVt  what  pecuniary  value  should  you  estimate  those 
buildings,  in  the  condition  in  M'hich  they  were  at  that  time? 

A}is. — I  should  say  they  Avere  worthless.  The  walls  were 
built  of  this  adobe  sun-dried  brick;  would  hardly  have  sup- 
ported the  roof;  they  had  crumbled  away,  from  the  rain.  I 
think  it  would  have  been  economy  to  have  built  anew,  rather 
than  to  have  attempted  to  make  them  habitable. 

Int.  7. — Please  to  state,  according  to  your  judgment  and 
experience,  how  many  of  your  men  would  it  have  taken,  and 
how  many  days'  time,  to  construct  two  such  buildings. 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  this  question,  unless  it  is  previously 
shoAvn  that  the  witness  had  some  experience  in  putting  up 
adobe  buildings.) 

An><. — I  do  not  feel  myself  competent  to  answer  this  ques- 
tion fully. 

Int.  8. — Have  you  ever  had  occasion  to  witness  or  direct  the 
making  of  adobe  bricks.  If  so,  state  briefly  the  material  and 
process. 

A/nf^. — I  have.  The  United  States  post  at  Fort  Wallula 
was  built  of  frame  work,  and  lined  Avith  adobe  brick.  It  is  a 
kind  of  mortar  formed  of  the  ground  and  water,  with  the  ad- 
dition of  straw;  the  time  of  making  depends  a  great  deal  on 
the  weatiicr;  dried  in  the  sun. 

Int.  9. — What  is  the  common  size  of  these  sun-dried  blocks 
of  mud,  called  adobes? 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  this  question.) 

An.i. — The  size  varies  according  to  the  differerit  uses  they 
are  put  to.  The  sizes  I  saw  made  were  almost  cubes,  about 
one  foot.  Those  I  saw  in  the  buildings  at  Boise  were  the  size 
of  ordinary  bricks. 

Int.  10. — State,  if  you  please,  how  these  adobes  are  formed. 

An.9. — Those  that  I  saw  made  were  as  follows :  An  excava- 
tion was  formed  in  the  ground,  the  dirt  from  which  was  wet 
and  then  manipulated  with  shovels.  Some  were  made  in  that 
way.     Then,  afterwards,  they  improved  on  that  maniier  and 


ii 


211 


had  a  kiutl  of  mill.  This  mill  was  nothing  more  than  a  cylin- 
der and  awheel  to  turn  around  by  a  horse,  of  the  very  simplest 
construction  imaginable. 

Int.  11. — Please  to  state  whether  you  saw  any  enclosed  land 
at  Fort  Boise. 

Ans. — I  did  not.  I  saw  no  evidence  of  cultivation  or  im- 
provement except  the  ruins  of  those  buildings  I  spoke  of. 

Int.  12. — What  was  the  (|uality  or  character  of  the  land 
immediatclv  around  and  in  the  neighborhood  of  those  two 
adobe  ruins? 

Ann. — In  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  post  it  was  level 
bottom;  they  call  that  country  sage-brush  country.  The  soil 
of  alkali  nature.  The  sage-brush  land  is  very  indifferent  for 
cultivation  ;  it  would  require  great  labor  to  make  it  profitable  ; 
and  as  to  pasturage,  I  do  not  think  a  herd  of  a  hundred  ani- 
mals could  live  within  range  of  the  fort,  and  be  at  all  service- 
able. Sage  brush  is  not  considered  feed  for  cattle;  horses  and 
cattle  will  not  eat  it.  I  have  heard  it  said  mules  would  eat  it, 
but  I  don't  believe  it.  I  found,  in  the  execution  of  the  orders 
I  had  received,  that  it  was  useless  to  send  animals  there  for 
pasturage. 

Int.  13. — Please  to  state  whether  you  have  at  any  time  been 
on  duty  at  the  United  States  fort  of  Walla-Walla ;  and,  if  so, 
how  long  and  at  what  time? 

Ana. — I  have  been  stationed  at  United  States  Fort  Walla- 
Walla  from  September,  18.39,  to  May,  1860.  I  spent  the 
winters  of  1850  and  'GO  and  18G0  and  'Gl  there. 

Int.  14. — State  whether  or  not  in  the  vicinity  of  the  United 
States  [Fort]  Walla- Walla  there  was  a  post  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  known  by  the  name  of  Walla-Walla  or  of 
Wallula. 

Ans. — There  Avas  a  post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  on 
the  Columbia  river  called  Old  Walla-Walla,  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Walla-Walla  river,  not  a  mile  above  the  mouth  of  the  Walla- 
Walla  river,  about  thirty  miles  from  the  United  States  fort  of 
Walla- Walla.  I  never  heard  Fort  Walla-Walla  designated  in 
any  other  way  than  the  old  fort. 


■I  Mi 


212 

Int.  1/5. — Did  you  at  any  time  or  times  visit  old  Fort  Walla- 
Walla;  and,  if  so,  how  many  times? 

AiiH. — I  visited  there  frequentl}';  the  drst  time  was  in  May, 
180<i.  I  visited  there  also  in  charge  of  a  scouting  party; 
camped  there  several  days. 

l)tt.  10. — Please  to  describe  what  buildings  or  structures 
constituted  the  old  fort. 

yl«.v. — I  remember  particularly  one  building,  built  of  adobe 
brick,  which  they  called  a  store;  also  an  enclosure,  four  Avails, 
inside  of  which  there  were  some  small  buildings;  think  there 
wore  tAvo ;  not  positive  about  that.  Enclosure  was  arranged 
like  a  fort  for  defence,  and  built  of  adobe.  The  two  buildings 
inside  were  of  adobe.  Tavo  sides  of  the  building  Avere  also 
portions  of  the  Avail,  the  building  being  placed  in  corners  of 
the  enclosure. 

Inf.  17. — Was  there  any  enclosed  land  under  cultivation  at 
the  old  fort? 

Ans. — There  was  one  small  tract  of  land  near  the  Walla- 
Walla  river,  I  suppose  two  or  three  miles  above  the  fort; 
probably  ten  or  fifteen  acres,  I  should  judge. 

Int.  18. — What  Avas  the  character  of  the  soil  and  country 
around  the  old  fort? 

Ann. — In  the  vicinity  of  the  old  fort,  a  shifting,  "andy  soil; 
the  sand  Avas  so  loose  it  drifted  with  the  wind.  There  Avas  no 
vegetation  worthy  of  the  name. 

Int.  19. — What  persons,  if  any,  were  in  occupation  of  the 
old  fort  at  that  time  ;  and  what  business,  if  any,  appeared  to 
be  transacted  there? 

Ans. — The  Oregon  Steam  Navigation  Company,  at  that 
time,  had  just  succeeded  in  running  up  their  first  boat.  They 
had  a  landing  at  the  old  fort,  and  had  some  agents  there  in 
occu])ation  of  the  old  buildings. 

Int.  20. — Have  you  knowledge  of  any  apparent  use  or  profit- 
able occupation  of  the  old  fort,  at  that  time,  by  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  ? 

Ans, — No,  sir. 


!  I  !!  ■« 


213 


Cross- Examination. 


Int.  1. — At  what  time  of  the  year  were  you  at  Fort  lioise  ? 

Arts. — I  was  there  in  Scptcmbei',  1859 ;  in  July  and  Au- 
gust, 1860 ;  in  October  and  November,  1860. 

Int.  2. — Was  it  at  the  first  time  you  were  there,  in  Septem- 
ber, 1859,  that  you  made  your  report  to  the  commanding 
officer? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  3. — Is  not  the  grass  injured  in  the  month  of  September — 
injured  by  the  long  summer  drought  of  that  country  ? 

Ans. — No ;  I  do  not  think  it  is ;  the  grass  that  form?*  the 
pasturage  there  is  the  bunch  grass ;  it  is  nutritious  even  in 
the  winter,  when  there  is  a  sufficiency  of  it. 

Int.  4. — On  these  scouting  expeditions  you  have  spoken  of, 
are  not  your  horses  subsisted  on  the  pasturage  you  find  on 
your  journeys? 

Ans. — Entirely  so. 

Int.  5. — How  long  would  you  like  to  have  your  horses  go 
without  grass  on  one  of  your  journeys  ? 

Ans. — I  should  hate  to  have  them  go  more  than  six  or  eight 
hours. 

Int.  6. — You  have  stated  that  you  camped  at  Old  Fort 
Boise,  first  time,  a  day  and  night;  at  another  time,  two  days ; 
at  another  time,  two  weeks ;  the  next  time,  two  or  three  days. 
Were  your  horses  at  that  time  confined  to  sage-brush  pas- 
turage? 

Ans. — No,  sir  ;  our  horses  were  herded  with  suitable  guard, 
and  sent  off  in  different  directions  from  the  camp  to  be  grazed. 
They  would  be  taken  at  times  as  far  as  six  miles.  We  were 
forced  to  keep  our  camp  there,  because  it  was  a  depot  of  pro- 
visions for  emigrants.  The  most  of  the  grazing  we  found  was 
on  the  river  Owyhee,  some  two  miles  from  Old  Fort  Boise. 

Int.  7. — Do  I  understand  you  to  mean,  then,  that  there  was 
pasturage  around  Fort  Boise,  but  not  in  the  immediate  vicin- 
ity of  your  camp  there? 


1 


li- 


:l.      ), 


il 


Pi? 

1  '4 


' '  !i  "I 


II 


214 

^>/«. — There  was  no  pasturage  around  Fort  Boh'e  in  the 
inune«liate  vicinity  ;  there  was  grass  there  that  would  sustain 
life,  scattered  through  the  sage  grass,  [brush.]  If  it  had  been 
optional  with  the  commanding  officer,  he  would  not  have  re- 
mained there  the  time  he  did.  I  remember,  in  our  homeward 
march,  men  were  made  to  dismount  and  lead  their  horses,  they 
had  been  so  reduced  by  scant  feed  at  Fort  JJoise. 

Jnf.  8. — You  stated  the  horses  were  sometimes  sent  six  miles 
for  feed.  Were  they  not  often  herded  at  shorter  distances 
from  the  fort  ? 

A'ii.i. — Yes,  sir;  herded  in  every  direction;  this  six  miles 
[was]  f»robably  the  longest  distance. 

Int.  9. — From  your  knowledge,  derived  from  your  camping 
at  Fort  lioise,  would  it  not  have  required  a  great  deal  of  land 
on  both  sides  of  the  Snake  river  to  have  pastured  large  bands 
of  horses,  kept  by  persons  living  at  old  Fort  Boise? 

A)i8. — It  would  so ;  it  would  have  required  a  very  extensive 
range. 

Int.  10. — Is  not  Fort  Boise  on  the  emigrant  trail,  and  the 
usual  and  common  camping-ground  for  parties  passing  up  and 
down  the  Snake  ? 

An8. — It  is  so ;  but  I  do  not  think  it  [was]  is  so  [much]  on 
account  of  the  pasturage  at  that  time,  as  for  wood  and  water. 
The  Snake  river  is  difficult  to  water  stock  in  ;  it  is  miry  along 
that  portion  of  it. 

Int.  11. — Might  not  the  camping  of  these  parties,  passing 
up  and  doy,  '>.  the  river  so  often,  at  the  same  spot,  have  injured 
the  pasturage  in  the  vicinity  of  and  around  the  fort? 

Ans, — The  first  time  I  was  at  the  fort,  in  1860,  there  had 
been  no  encampments  there  that  year ;  the  year  before,  the 
emigration  that  had  passed  over  might  have  destroyed  it  to 
some  extent. 

Int.  12. — Do  you  know  anything  of  the  effect  of  emigration 
on  sage-brush  lands  ? 

Ans. — Not  from  my  personal  knowledge. 

Int.  13. — Is  not  the  bunch  grass  of  that  country  often  found, 
to  some  extent,  on  what  is  called  sage-brush  land? 

Ans. — It  is,  to  a  very  limited  extent. 


215 


J)it.  14. — 111  your  examination  of  Fort  Boise,  did  you  not  ob- 
serve an  enclosure,  or  the  remains  of  one,  similar  to  that  at 
old  Fort  Walla- Walla,  although  not  as  great  in  extent? 

Ans. — The  building  spoken  of  in  my  evidence  as  in  ruins, 
looked  like  it  might  be  an  enclosure ;  but  it  was  so  crumbled 
it  was  difficult  to  say  what  it  looked  like. 

Inf.  1'). — You  have  spoken  of  the  south  face  of  this  build- 
ing with  a  bastion  to  it.  Was  not  this  the  south  wall  of  an 
enclosure,  similar  to  that  of  Fort  "Walla-Walla  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir;  I  don't  think  it  was  ;  it  had  been  a  building 
arranged  for  defence,  but  built  more  especially  for  a  store- 
house. 

Int.  10. — What  was  the  length  of  this  south  wall  you  spoke 
of? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  sufficiently  the  dimensions  to  say. 

Int.  17. — Where  was  this  other  building  situated  that  vou 
spoke  of,  and  how  near  to  the  building  you  have  last  spoken 
of? 

Ans. — Situated  off  the  northwest  angle  of  the  main  build- 
ing, towards  the  river,  from  thirty  to  fifty  yards  distant ;  may 
have  been  a  little  less  than  that. 

Int.  18. — Was  this  an  enclosure  resembling  the  old  fort  at 
Walla- Walla  ? 

Ans. — It  was  too  much  in  ruins  for  me  to  say  what  it  had 
been;  but  the  extent  of  the  foundations  were  greater  than 
they  could  have  roofed  out  there. 

Int.  19. — Could  not  buildings  have  been  erected  on  the  in- 
side of  the  enclosure,  and  roofed,  leaving  an  open  space  within 
the  enclosure  ? 

Ans. — It  might  have  been  so. 

Int.  20. — You  have  some  acquaintance  with  adobes,  as  made 
by  soldiers.     Have  you  any  idea  how  long  they  would  last? 

Ans. — I  have  not. 

Int.  21. — Is  all  the  earth  you  found  fit  for  adobes  ;  and 
does  it  not  require  a  peculiar  kind  of  earth  for  the  purpose  of 
making  adobes? 

Ans. — Some  kind  of  earth  you  can  make  adobes  of  with 
less  trouble  than  others. 


m 


i  1 


i'l 


M 


h 


1 


iy:: 


ill 


> 


iiii 


! 


mil 


iiiiiiffii 


216 

7w/.  22. — Could  you  make  adobes  at  old  Fort  Walla-Walla, 
of  the  earth  there? 

Ans. — Very  near  there ;  in  the  bottom  of  the  Walla-AValla 
river. 

I?)(.  23. — Is  not  the  earth  preferred  for  adobes  generally  a 
sort  of  clay  ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  24. — Does  it  not  require  working  by  the  feet  of  cattle 
and  horses,  driven  about,  or  in  some  other  way,  to  make  it  fit 
for  bricks  ? 

Ans. — Depends  upon  the  number  you  want;  they  require  to 
be  worked  in  some  way. 

Int.  25. — How  is  the  shape  and  measure  of  the  brick  ob- 
tained, that  you  have  spoken  of? 

Ana. — They  have  some  form  of  mould. 

Int.  26. — If  you  cannot  [give]  the  length  of  the  Avails  at  Fort 
Boise,  can  you  give  its  height  or  its  thickness  ? 

A71S. — I  think  the  short  wall  that  was  standing  was  seven 
feet  high,  and  one  opposite  was  ten  or  eleven  ;  I  should  say  they 
were  a  foot  and  a  half  to  two  feet  in  thickness. 

Int.  27. — Can  you  give  any  approximate  idea  of  their 
length  ? 

Ans. — I  should  think  not  more  than  thirty  feet. 

Int.  28. — You  have  spoken  of  rye  grass  springing  up  and 
almost  concealing  the  ruins ;  is  not  this  rye  grass,  in  the 
spring  of  the  year,  a  good  pasturage  for  horses  ? 

Ans. — It  is  not  considered  good  pasturage ;  it  scours  the 
horses  very  much. 

Int.  29. — Does  not  all  new  grass,  in  the  spring  of  the  year, 
have  that  effect  on  horses  ? 

Ans. — Yes ;  but  not  to  the  same  extent.  A  horse  that  has 
been  pastured  all  winter  would  not  be  scoured  by  the  moun- 
tain grass,  even  when  green ;  but  he  would  by  the  rye  grass. 

Int.  30. — Did  you  give  a  particular  examination  to  old  Fort 
Walla-Walla  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not ;  I  was  frequently  in  the  enclosure,  but  did 
not  take  the  dimensions. 


217 

Int.  31. — Have  you  any  particular  recollection  of  the  wall 
of  the  fort,  its  height  or  its  thickness. 

Ans. — I  have  not. 

Int.  32. — Can  you  say  that  there  were  not,  inside  of  the 
walls  of  the  fort,  some  houses  and  ranges  of  stores  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot. 

Int.  33. — Have  you  any  recollection  of  two  bastions,  be- 
longing to  the  fort  ? 

Am. — I  remember  there  was  something  of  the  kind. 

M.  A.  Reno, 
Capt.  1st.  Cav.,  Bvt.  Col.  U.  S.  A. 

J.  Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me  this  ninth  day  of 

L^'  ^'-1  November,  A.  D.  1866. 

N.  Callan, 
Notary  PiihUf. 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson  s   Bay    Company 
against  the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  Leiois  S.  Thompson,  a  witness  examined  in  the 
City  of  Washington,  and  District  of  Columbia,  on  the 
part  and  behalf  of  the  United  States,  Avho,  being  duly 
sworn,  deposeth  and  testifies  as  follows : 

Testimony  op  Lewis  S.  Thompson. 


Int.  1. — Please  to  state  your  name  at  length,  residence, 
and  profession. 

Ans. — Lewis  S.  Thompson;  residence  in  Jacksonville,  Jack- 
son county,  Oregon  ;  I  am  a  physician. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  any  personal  knowledge  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  post  at  Umpqua ;  and  if  so,  under  what  circumstances 
acquired,  and  at  and  for  what  time  ? 

Ans. — I  have,  having  resided  at  Scottsburgh,  the  road  to 
and  from  which  passes  immediately  in  sight  of  the  post.     My 


I"  '  I  i 


i;<  r 


Ij;  !,^' 


ii.:i!'. 


i 


)l 

■1 

;l 

'<j 

iji 

liii:^' 

218 

husiiic-s  le<l  rne  to  travel  this  loafl  frcfiuently,  tliore  being 
but  one  trail  from  S('nttsbur;^li  to  the  interior,  and  that  trail 
passing-  this  jicst.  I  frcfiucntly  travcr.st'il  tlio  country  at  and 
about  the  post.  I  was  at  Scottsburgh  from  September,  1852, 
to  Jan  nil  ry,  1.S;j7. 

Int.  '■). — Please  to  describe  the  buildings  at  the  post  as  you 
saw  tlu'Ui  i)i  18">2.     State  what  buildings  were  there. 

A)if<. — T  eannot  exactly  recollect.  The  buildings  were 
dilapidated;  a  portion  of  them  were  standing,  and  a  portion 
had  fallen  down. 

lilt.  4. — Did  you  take  notice  of  the  character  and  quality 
of  the  land  about  the  post?  And  if  so,  please  to  state  what 
proportion  of  it  was  good  land,  and  what,  in  your  judgment, 
was  the  value  of  a  mile  sfjuaro  of  the  land  at  and  around  it. 

Ann. — I  did ;  one-half  was  good  land.  Two  thousand  to 
twenty-five  hundred  dollars.  A  portion  of  the  land  was  good, 
and  a  portion  of  it  was  hilly,  mountainous  land.  The  hilly 
land  had  no  particular  value  for  tillage  or  grazing.  I  desire 
to  explain  that  I  base  my  estimate  of  the  land  on  the  assump- 
tion that  the  post  stands  in  the  centre  of  the  land  up  and 
down  the  river;  a  half-mile  up  the  river,  and  half-mile  doAvn 
the  river. 

Int.  o. — What  person,  if  any,  was  in  apparent  charge  of 
the  post,  in  behalf  of  the  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  the  name  of  the  person  in  charge 
of  the  post ;  it  was  a  Frenchman. 

Int.  0. — On  which  side  of  the  river,  relatively  to  the  road 
to  California,  and  how  far  from  it,  is  the  post  at  Umpqua. 
Is  it  on  the  right  or  the  wrong  side  of  tlie  river,  relatively 
to  that  road? 

^w«.-:-Umpqua  is  on  the  south  or  west  side  of  the  river, 
the  road  to  California  passing  on  the  opposite  side  at  no  great 
distance ;  the  road  is  on  one  bank  of  the  river,  and  the  post 
on  the  opposite  bank. 

hit.  7. — Have  you  or  not  any  knowledge  of  cattle  belong- 
ing to  the  post  being  killed  by  the  settlers ;  and  if  so,  under 
what  circumstances,  and  for  Avhat  apparent  cause  ? 

Ans. — Nothing  beyond  common  talk.     The  common  repu- 


219 

tiition  wnx  tliat  tlic  stock  was  wild,  and  liatl  not  lioou  liaiidlod 
for  sovenil  voars,  and  tlic  conscoueiice  was  that  they  wore 
very  tronldt-soine,  ami  thercforo  wi-ro  killed. 

Int.  H. — Have  you  or  not  knowledge  of  cattle  or  horses  he- 
loii<;iiig  to  the  post  heiiig  sold  hy  the  Company's  a;xent? 

A)i9. — I  have  not,  personally.  I  have  seen  tlie  corral  in 
Mhich  the  i  orscs  were  collected,  and  saw  persons  who  were 
<  jiployed  i'l  collecting  them.  I  also  saw  some  dead  animals, 
and  heard  statements  made  as  to  the  cause  of  their  death, 
and  statements  conccrninj;  sales. 

Int.  i'. — Have  you  or  not  knowledge  of  the  farm  in  that 
region  owned  or  occupied  by  Mr.  Chapman  ;  and  if  so,  how 
is  it  situated  relatively  to  Fort  I'mpqua? 

Ann. — Mr.  Chapman  lived  on  the  Fort  Un  pf|ua  farm. 

Int.  10. — What  is  the  estimated  value,  in  that  country,  of 
Mr.  Chapman's  farm  at  tMs  time? 

Ann. — Fifteen  hundred  dollars;  the  land  not  being  so  val- 
uable as  it  formerly  was,  when  I  valued  it  at  twenty-five  hun- 
dred dollars. 

Cross-IJxam  ination . 


large 


repu- 


Int.  1. — How  far  is  this  town  of  Scottsburgh  from  the  Com- 
pany's post  at  Umpqua? 

Ans. — Twenty  miles. 

Int.  2. — You  speak  of  the  road  running  from  Scotsburgb  to 
the  interior.    To  what  places  of  importance  did  that  road  lead? 

Ans. — It  leads  to  the  main  trail  running  through  Oregon  to 
California,  and  is  the  trail  over  which  goods  are  shipped  to 
the  towns  in  the  interior  of  Oakland,  Winchester,  Roseburgh, 
Canyonville ;  which  towns  supply  the  settled  portions  of 
Umpqua  valley  with  goods. 

Int.  3. — How  far  from  the  bank  of  the  Umpqua  was  the 
Company's  post? 

Ans. — About  one  hundred  and  fifty  yards. 

Int.  4. — Is  the  Umpqua  a  fordable  river  near  the  fort  or 
not? 

Ans. — It  is  not.   There  is  a  ford,  used  in  summer  time,  about 


M  :,'" ; 


220 

three  miles  above  the  fort.  I  think  there  is  a  bridle  trail  from 
tlie  ford  to  the  fort,  but  no  wagon  trail. 

Int.  5. — Is  there  any  diflSculty  in  crossing  the  river  near  the 
fort  by  canoes  or  boats? 

Ann. — There  is  none.  That  was  the  means  of  crossing  from 
the  trail  to  the  post, 

Int.  6. — Was  it  not  common  reputation  that  a  good  many 
cattle  had  been  killed  by  the  settlers  belonging  to  the  Com- 
pany? 

Ans. — It  was. 

Int.  7. — Was  it  not  also  common  reputation  that  the  beef 
cattle  of  the  Company,  killed  by  the  settlers,  had  been  sold 
in  Scottsburgh  and  other  places  by  the  settlers? 

Ans. — I  think  not.  There  were  reports  occasionally  of 
cattle  being  killed  by  packers  passing  through  the  country  ; 
they  usually  called  the  cattle  elk. 

Int.  8. — Were  not  the  cattle  usually  kept  by  the  settlers  in 
that  country,  many  of  them,  of  the  Spanish  breed? 

Ans. — They  were  not,  until,  about  1854  or  1855,  some 
cattle  of  the  Spanish  breed  were  driven  into  that  country. 

Int.  9. — Did  not  all  the  cattle  in  that  country  range  loose 
as  a  general  thing  ? 

Ayis. — They  did. 

Int.  10. — Who  is  the  present  occupant  of  the  farm  at  the 
post? 

Ans. — I  cannot  tell.  My  belief  is  that  it  has  not  been  oc- 
cupied for  several  years. 

Int.  11. — Are  you  acquainted  with  Governor  Gibbs  ?  If  so, 
state  what  is  your  judgment  of  his  competency  to  pass  upon 
the  value  of  land  personally  known  to  him  in  the  valley  of 
the  Umpqua. 

(Mr.  Cushing  objects  to  the  question,  as  not  matter  of  cross- 
examination,  and  not  competent  testimony  in  any  point  of 
view.) 

Ans. — I  am.     I  should  think  he  was. 

Int.  12. — Have  you  bought  or  sold  any  farming  land  in  the 
Umpqua  Valley  during  the  last  year  ? 

Ans. — I  am  now  trying  to  sell  a  farm  which  I  have  owned 


'll'lli  iii'ii 


221 

since  18.jT,  coiitaining  040  acres,  for  two  thousand  dollars, 
witliiii  sight  of  Fort  Umpqua,  and  which  I  would  not  ex- 
change for  the  Fort  Umpqua  Farm. 

Examlnation-m-CJiii'f  liesuined. 


Int.  1. — AVhcn  you  say  that  in  your  opinion  (jovernor 
Gibbri  is  competent  to  pass  judgment  on  the  value  of  land  in 
Umpqua  Valley,  do  you  mean  to  bo  understood  as  implying 
that  he  has  any  special  competency  su})erior  to  your  own  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not. 

Lit.  2. — Do  you  think  he  is  any  better  judge  of  the  money 
value  of  your  own  farm  than  you  yourself  arc? 

Alts. — I  do  not. 

Int.  3. — Do  you  think  that  he  is  any  better  judge  than  you 
yourself  arc  of  the  relative  value  of  your  farm  and  the  Fort 
Umpqua  Farm  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not. 

Int.  4. — What  are  your  means  of  information  as  to  the 
value  of  lands  in  the  Umpqua  Valley  ? 

Ans. — From  actual  transactions,  lands  being  bought  and 
sold  under  my  knowledge. 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  this  last  interrogatory,  upon  the 
ground  that  it  is  incompetent  and  irrelevant,  in  the  renewal 
of  an  examination-in-chief.) 

(Mr.  Gushing  res;  jnds  that  this  question  is  not  renewal  of 
an  examination-in-chiof,  but  i.-'  the  cross-examination  of  the 
witness  relative  to  the  eleuKats  of  the  matter  of  opinion,  as 
to  which  Mr.  Lander  made  the  witness  his  own  by  the  in.tro- 
duction  of  new  matter) 

Int.  5. — Who  is  Governor  Gibbs,  and  how  does  he  get  the 
title  of  Governor  ? 

Ans. — 1I{?  is  a  .:nap  v'lo  weighs  about  250  lbs.,  and  served 
four  ye"  '-  as  Govcruov  of  Orc!|on. 

Int.  0. — You  have  stated  that  there  was  a  report  that  cattle 
were  killed  by  packers  going  through  the  country,  and  called 
elk  meat.  Did  the  report  run  that  ihese  cuttle  were  killed  in 
the  corral  of  the  Company  ? 


000 

Ans^. — The  report  did  not.  The  Company  could  not  have 
corralled  tlicir  cattle  had  they  tried. 

Int.  7. — Have  j'^ou  or  not  any  kno'w ledge  of  «oa-otter  or 
other  furs  heitig  traded  hy  the  Indians  to  the  Company,  when 
you  first  went  tiicre  ? 

Ans. — There  was  little  or  no  trade  at  Fort  Umprjua  when  I 
went  there. 

L.  S.  Thompson. 

Wasj[tngtox,  D.  C,  December  18,  1866. 


m 


I 


Claim  of  the   Ilcdsons   Bajj    Company  againnt    tJie     United 

States. 

Deposition  of  A.  Jl  Cain,  taken  at  the  request  and  in  l)ehalf 
of  the  United  States,  hy  agreement  between  Caleb  Cush- 
ing,  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  and  Edward  Lander, 
on  behalf  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company^ 

Testimony  of  A.  J.  Cain. 

Int.  1. — Please  to  state  your  name  at  length,  and  your 
present  occupation  and  residence. 

Ans. — !Mv  name  is  Andrew  J.  Cain  :  have  been  residing  at 

t.'  ■'  o 

Walla-Walla,  in  Washington  Territoiy ;  engaged  in  real  estate 
business. 

Int.  2. — Have  you,  at  any  time,  been  employed  as  Indian 
agent  in  Oregon  or  Washington  ?  And  if  so,  please  to  state 
for  what  district,  and  for  what  years. 

An-'j. — I  was  employed  as  Indian  agent  in  Washington 
Territory  for  three  years,  up  to  SejUenibcr,  1861,  in  charge  of 
the  Walla-Walla  district,  which  embraced  all  of  Washinjiton 
Territory  between  the  Columbia  river  and  the  Bitter-Root 
Mountains. 

Int.  3. — For  what  length  of  time,  since  then,  have  you  re- 
sided at  Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — Up  to  my  departure  for  that  city  in  March  last. 


223 


Int.  4. — Please  to  describe  tlio  structure'?,  if  any.  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  old  Walla-Walla,  at  the  time  whcu 
you  first  had  kiioAvIodge  of  them  as  Indian  agent. 

Ann. — An  ordinary  sized  trading-fort,  made  of  adobes,  with 


a  main 


build 


mir  msule,  w 


hieh  I  suppo 


so  was  about  si\ 


ty  ^y 

thirty,  all  in  a  very  dihipiilateil  conditi(jn.  There  wi-re  evi- 
dences of  there  having  been  some  small  tenements,  but  I  could 
not  judge  of  their  character.  There  was  but  the  one  Imilding 
left  standing,  which  had  no  roof  on  it. 

Int.  o. — In  what  manner  were  these  structures  oceupied,  if 
at  all,  at  that  period  ? 


A 


n.i. 


■Tl 


ley  were  unoccupied  uuring 


Idi 


18,->1). 


;ome 


trad 


ers 


repaired  the  building,  and  occupied  it  in  1^^^J0. 


fi)t.  6. — What  is  the  present  conditi 


n)n  oi 


t\n 


uildings,  an( 


1 


if  at  all,  occunied  ? 


Ans. — They  have  been  almost  entirely  rebuilt;  they  are  now 
occupied  by  traders.  New  roofs  have  been  put  on  tlie  build- 
ings, and  the  walls  repaired — putting  in  doors  and  v  indows. 
Tlie  walls  of  the  fort  and  building,  when  I  first  saw  iheui,  were 
in  a  very  bad  condition. 

lose  expense  these  repairs 


Ii^t.  7. — State,  if 


ou 


k 


ilOW 


at  wl 


were  made,  and  who  were  the  traders  occupying  the  ];i'emises. 
Ans. — To  the  extent  of  my  knowledge,  at  individual  ex- 
pense; Higgins  and  Greenwell  first  occupied  them,  al'lerwards, 
Van  Sickle  ai\d  Tatem  ;   I  am  not  acquainted  with  the  parties 
occupying  them  of  late.      IJy  expense  of  indi- 


w 


ho 


viuuai 


1  . 


')ce.i 


;>'i  an  private  individuals,  traders. 
—  I  low  manv  vears  have   vou  l)een   engaficl  in 


land 


or  re 


I 


est 


;te  b 


usiness  ;  and  have  vou  or 


the 
not  hiid  expe- 


rience in  t'.e  purchase  and  sale  of  real  estate?  And  if  so,  to 
what  extent? 

Ans. — Engaged  in  that  business  since  ISGl ;  have  owned 
property  in  Wada- Walla,  and  negotiated  large  amounts  of  pur- 
chases and  sales  for  others. 

7  '.  9. — Please  to  state  what,  in  your  judgment,  was  the  in- 
trl  :  >  \(ecuniary  \^alue  of  those  structures  as  structures,  and 
apan  lom  tlie  laud,  as  they  stood  in  1850,  and  befuro  they 
were  lopaired  by  private  traders. 


224 


Ai(S\ — Twcnty-fivc  buiulrcd  to  tliree  thousand  dollars,  at 
the  price  of  luiildiMg  material  then. 

Jut.  10. — Describe  the  character  of  the  land,  as  adapted  to 
agricultural  or  grazing  uses,  at  and  about  old  Walla-AValla. 

Ans. — Land  in  the  immediate  vicinity  is  a  sandy  waste  ; 
there  are  no  good  farming  or  grazing  lands  until  you  reach 
Touchet  river,  fourteen  miles  in  the  interior. 

Int.  11. — Please  to  state  the  character  of  the  roads,  if  any, 
at  or  about  ohl  Walla-Walla;  whether  any  particular  road, 
leading  to  or  from  old  Walla-Walla,  exi  -ed  at  the  time  when 
y(Mi  first  became  acquainted  with  the  y  ost ;  and  whether  trav- 
elling at  or  al)out  old  H'alla-Walla  requires  the  expensive  con- 
struction of  roads. 

Ans. — The  character  oj  .o  countr}^  did  not,  and  never  has 
re(|uired  any  labor  in  making  good  wagon  roads,  beyond  the 
bridging  of  streams  ;  the  reason  of  this  is,  because  it  is  a  prai- 
rie couTitry,  universally  a  sandy  soil ;  the  grade  of  the  highest 
plateaux  is  of  that  eas}'  character  that  good  natural  wagon 
roads  could  always  be  obtained  by  simply  making  a  reconnois- 
anee,  except  as  to  crossing;  the  mountains,  which  are  fifty 
miles  distant  from  the  post.  Even  at  the  mountains,  natural 
roads  can  be  obtained. 

Int.  12. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany's post  at  Fort  Colvile?  And  if  so,  how  much,  and  at 
what  time  i 

^1?)*. — I  am;  having  spent  some  time  in  the  Colvile  A^'alley 
in  the  fall  of  1859. 

Inf.  13. — Please  to  describe  the  buildings  which  you  saw 
there  at  that  time. 

Ans. — They  were  of  the  most  ordinary  character,  built  of 
logs,  put  u\>  in  a  rough  manner;  I  don't  remember  their  di- 
mensions ;  I  was  particularly  struck  with  the  dilapidated  air 
the  place  wore. 

Int.  14. — What,  in  your  judgment,  was  at  that  time  the  value 
in  money  of  those  buildings? 

Atis. — From  five  to  seven  thousand  dollars,  to  any  one  who 
needed  those  buildings  at  that  point. 

Int.  15. — Please  to  inspect  the  lithograph  Qv.iOtograph]  sub- 


225 

mitted  to  you,  and  hereto  annexed,  and  marked  with  your  name, 
and  state  whether  it  does  or  does  not  represent  any  structures 
with  which  you  are  acquainted.     And  if  so,  what  ? 

Ans. — It  represents  one  view  of  the  buildings  at  Fort  Col- 
vile. 

Cross-Examination. 

Int.  1. — What  trading-posts,  other  than  those  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company,  have  you  ever  seen  in  Indian  country  ? 

Am. — I  have  seen  none  in  Oregon  and  Washington  but  those 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Int.  2. — When  you  speak  of  an  ordinary  sized  trading  post, 
you  mean  a  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  post? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  3. — Was  not  this  fort  that  you  have  spoken  about, 
113  feet  square,  and  the  walls  about  12  feet  high,  and  about 
one  and  a  half  foot  thick  ? 

Ans. — My  recollection  serves  me  that  the  fort  was  from  100 
to  120  feet  square ;  adobe  walls,  from  ten  to  twelve  feet  high  ; 
that  is,  the  walls  that  were  standing. 

Int.  4. — Did  the  traders  that  you  have  spoken  of  repair 
the  walls  with  adobes,  as  well  as  roof  the  buildings  ? 

Ans. — They  repaired  the  buildings,  and  also  repaired  the 
walls  somewhat,  and  used  it  as  a  corral. 

Int.  5. — You  have  spoken  of  the  intrinsic  pecuniary  value 
of  these  structures  as  structures,  and  apart  from  the  land  in 
1859.  What  was  the  value,  in  your  opinion,  of  a  mile  square 
of  land,  including  the  old  post  at  Walla- Walla,  and  landing,  at 
the  time  you  last  saw  it  ? 

Ans. — In  1859,  a  mile  square  had  no  particular  value  apart 
from  these  improvements ;  since  then  it  has  become  valuable 
as  a  landing,  owing  to  the  development  of  the  mines ;  it  has 
been  quite  a  shipping  point  for  the  Walla- Walla  Valley  and 
interior  mines. 

Int.  6. — Has  not  this  landing  a  value  also,  caused  by  the 
settlement  of  the  surrounding  country,  for  agriculture,  as  well 
as  the  mining  improvements  ? 

Ana. — To  a  limited  extent. 
15  H 


i! 


^;  f 


I,  .J 


Iff  I  -}    i  ■ 


II;  r^ 


111 


if  n; 


220 

Int.  7. — From  your  knowledge  of  the  surrounding  country, 
west  of  the  Cascade,  and  east  of  the  Bitter-Root  Mountains, 
what,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  best  landing  on  the  Columbia 
river  for  the  transaction  of  business? 

Ans. — Wallula  is  the  most  important  landing. 

Int.  8. — Can  you  place  any  pecuniary  value  on  it  as  a  town- 
site? 

Ans. — It  would  be  difficult  to  do  so,  owing  to  the  efforts 
being  made  to  establish  two  other  points  above  it,  one  at  White 
Bluffs,  and  the  other  at  Palouse  llapids  on  the  Snake  river. 

I)tt.  9. — Will  not  the  fact  that  the  rapids  on  the  Columbia 
and  Snake  prevent  navigation  at  low-water  above  Wallula, 
and  the  fact  that  these  two  other  places  communicate  only 
with  extreme  northern  mines,  prevent  their  becoming  rivals 
of  Wallula  to  any  great  extent? 

Ans. — Low-water,  at  certain  seasons  of  the  year,  obstructs 
navigation  above  Wallula,  but  whether  to  the  extent  of  inter- 
fering with  the  mining  trade  with  those  upper  points,  I  am 
unable  to  say. 

Int.  10. — Do  you  not  think  yourself  that  the  advantages 
which  Wallula  possesses  over  White  Bluffs,  and  the  point  on 
the  Palouse,  will  secure  to  Wallula  the  start  which  she  now 
possesses  over  both  those  places  ? 

Ans. — I  think  she  possesses  advantages  arising  from  the 
agricultural  resources  of  the  Walla-Walla  Valley ;  but  as  to 
whether  she  will  rival  other  points  above  in  controlling  mining 
trade  is  questionable  in  my  mind. 

Int.  11. — Has  not  the  main  business  transacted  at  Wallula 
heretofore  been  with  the  southern  mines  and  the  valley  of 
Walla-Walla ;  and  does  it  not  owe  to  that  chiefly  its  present 
position  ? 

Ans. — It  does. 

Int.  12. — Can  either  of  these  places  you  have  spoken  of 
rival  it  in  the  trade  of  the  southern  mines  or  Walla- Walla 
Valley? 

Ans. — No. 

Int.  13. — Are  there  not  good  grazing  lands  on  the  hills 


227 


south  of  the  Walla-Walla  river,  and  within  two  or  three  miles 
of  the  old  fort  ? 

Ans. — There  is  good  grazing  on  the  plateau  and  hill  sides, 
on  the  south  side  of  the  Walla-Walla  river,  within  about  three 
miles  of  the  old  fort ;  more  than  two  miles  ;  about  three  miles. 

Int.  14. — Are  there  not  agricultural  lands  for  farming  pur- 
poses along  the  valley  of  the  Walla-Walla  river,  which  flows 
into  the  Columbia  river,  a  short  distance  south  of  the  old 
fort  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir  ;  there  is  a  small  piece  of  bottom-land,  forty 
or  fifty  acres,  two  miles  and  a- half  from  the  fort  up  the  river, 
and  som  further  bottom-land,  a  little  higher  up,  in  detached 
pieces. 

Int.  15. — Do  you  know  as  to  the  price  of  the  old  store  at 
Wallula? 

-4/^?. — I  think  at  one  time  $150  a  month  was  paid  for  the 
store. 

Int.  16. — At  the  time  you  were  at  Fort  Colvile,  in  1859, 
was  or  was  there  not  a  stockade  around  the  buildings  of  the 
fort? 

Ans. — Not  around  all  the  buildings ;  there  was  some  stock- 
ade ;  cannot  say  how  much. 

Inf.  17. — Where  did  you  stop  when  in  the  Colvile  Valley? 

Ans. — At  the  military  post,  about  12  or  14  miles  from  Fort 
Colvile. 

Int.  18. — How  often  were  you  at  Fort  Colvile  when  in  the 
valley  ? 

Ans. — I  made  two  special  visits  to  the  fort,  and  was  there 
an  entire  day  each  tin    . 

Int.  19. — At  the  times  of  your  visit  there,  did  you  give  a 
particular  examination  to  the  building  at  the  fort? 

Ans. — I  gave  no  further  examination  than  natural  curiosity, 
under  the  circumstances,  would  induce  one  to  give. 

Int.  20. — What  was  that  examination? 

Ans. — The  gentleman  in  charge  of  the  post  went  with  me, 
and  an  officer  of  the  army,  round  the  post  and  surroundings, 
explaining  in  a  general  way  the  character  of  the  operations. 


■ :!'  if  " 


il. 


■  I" 


i  I'll  ki 


liii 

■I 


i 


i  'i 

ill! 


ilj^:' 


228 

Inl.  21. — Did  these  buildings  face  outwardly  or  inwardly 
upon  as((uare  in  the  centre? 

Ann. — I  cannot  answer  that  question  distinctly.  There  were 
some  old  buildings  detached  from  the  main  building. 

Jilt.  22. — Do  you  remember  whether  the  stockade  of  which 
you  have  spoken  extended  on  three  sides? 

Ans. — I  can't  say.  Saw  evidences  of  there  having  been  a 
stockade. 

//(/.  2;>. — Was  there  an  open  place  in  the  centre,  surrounded 
hy  buildings? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  such. 

J71I.  24. — Do  you  remember  a  large  frame  dwelling-house, 
about  .00  by  23  feet,  a  story  and  a  half  high,  clapboarded 
and  shingled  and  plastered  ?  > 

Ans. — I  remember  being  in  a  house  of  similar  dimensions ; 
do  not  recollect  it  as  described. 

Int.  2.'). — Do  you  remember  any  clapboarded  and  shingled 
house  there  ? 

Ans. — I  can't  say  that  I  could  speak  particularly  of  the 
character  of  the  roofs. 

Int.  20. — If  you  cannot  speak  as  to  the  roofs,  can  you  say 
whether  any  building  was  clapboarded? 

Ans. — My  ii  ipression  is,  that  there  were  some  that  were 
clapboarded. 

Int.  27. — Is  it  not  a  very  unusual  thing  to  clapboard  any 
building  in  that  country,  unless  it  be  a  very  valuable  one? 

(Mr.  Gushing  objects  to  this  question  as  too  argumentative, 
and  as  ar^suming  facts  for  the  premises  which  do  not  a^jpear.) 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Int.  28. — Did  you  notice  chimneys  to  these  buildings  ? 

A71S. — I  cannot  remember  the  chimneys.     I  saw  fire-places. 

Int.  20. — Did  you  notice  a  store-house  60  feet  by  20  ? 

Ans. — I  was  in  a  store-house,  but  did  not  take  sufficient 
notice  as  to  size. 

Int.  30. — Were  you  in  or  did  you  see  any  other  store-house 
than  the  one  you  have  mentioned? 

Ans. — I  was  in  the  attic  of  the  building,  looking  at  some  furs, 


229 

but  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  in  the  same  building  I  had 
been  in  or  not. 

Int.  31. — Do  you  or  not  recollect  whether  there  was  another 
store-house  than  the  one  j'ou  first  mentioned? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember. 

Int.  32. — Do  you  recollect  a  timber  bastion  of  two  stories 
high  ? 

An8. — My  impression  is  that  I  saw  such  a  bastion — a  vague 
impression. 

Int.  33. — Have  you  anything  now  but  a  vague  impression  of 
the  buildings  you  saw  there  in  1859  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir.  I  have  distinct  recollection  of  the  officer's 
quarters  and  the  trading-house  where  they  were  trading  with 
the  Indians;  and  there  were  some  out-buildings  occupied  by 
some  half-breeds  and  some  Indians. 

Int.  34. — Are  these  the  buildings  you  noticed,  and  to  which 
your  testimony  already  given  applies  ? 

Ans. — One  of  those  buildings  I  was  in. 

Int.  35. — You  have  stated,  in  answer  to  the  last  interroga- 
tory, that  you  were  in  one  of  these  buildings,  and  you  have 
also  stated  that  you  "have  distinct  recollection  of  the  officers' 
quarters,  the  trading-house,  and  some  out-buildings;"  which 
of  these  buildings  and  out-buildings  do  you  now  mean  to  say 


that 


you  were  in 


Ans. — I  accepted  the  hospitality  of  the  officer  in  command 
of  the  post  in  the  building  occupied  by  him.  I  visited,  with 
him,  another  building  where  there  was  trading  with  the  In- 
dians, and  then  visited  another  building  separate  and  apart,  to 
see  some  half-breed  Indians.  AVhen  I  said  "  one  of  these 
buildings,"  I  was  alluding  to  the  building  on  the  lithograph. 

Int.  36. — Is  the  building  in  which  you  say  you  accepted  the 
officer's  hospitality  the  same  which  you  before  mentioned  as 
that  of  the  officers'  quarters? 

Am. — Y"es. 

Int.  37. — Do  you  know  whether  the  officers'  quarters  was  a 
frame  building  or  built  of  logs  ? 

Ans. — It  was  a  log  building. 

Int.  38. — Was  it  clapboarded  and  shingled  or  not? 


!       'H 


'n 


230 


iii'  I 


i|',,    V' 


vm 


Ans. — I  only  remember  examining  the  interior  of  the  build- 
ing, and  its  general  appearance  outside. 

Int.  39. — Was  it  plastered  inside  or  not? 

Ans. — Remember  no  plastering ;  saw  some  wood-work  and 
papering. 

I}it.  40. — Was  there  a  good  roof  on  the  house  or  not? 

Arts. — From  the  general  appearance  inside,  I  suppose  there 
was. 

Int.  41. — From  the  general  appearance  of  the  house  inside, 
do  you  consider  the  house  in  good  repair? 

Ans. — Very  good  repair,  for  the  character  of  the  house, 
and  what  you  would  call  good  repair  for  this  part  of  the 
country. 

Int.  42. — Was  the  store-house  you  have  mentioned  in  as 
good  repair  as  the  officers'  quarters  ? 

Alls. — The  building  was  not  near  as  well  finished,  and  would 
not  need  as  much  repair. 

Int.  43. — Were  the  goods  of  the  Company  stored  in  the 
store-house  of  which  you  have  been  speaking  ? 

Ans. — I  know  nothing  about  any  other  goods  than  those 
I  saw  displayed  in  the  store-house  alluded  to. 

Int.  44. — Do  not  all  buildings,  built  of  squared  timber, 
and  neither  clapboarded  or  painted,  after  exposure  to  the 
weather,  look  both  worn  and  dilapidated? 

Ans. — As  a  general  rule,  they  do  ;  but  they  maintain  their 
proportion. 

Int.  45. — Does  this  lithograph  you  have  referred  to  exhibit 
anything  more  than  the  side  and  rear  of  one  of  the  buildings 
at  Fort  Colvile,  and  the  out-building,  shed,  and  stable  belong- 
ing to  it? 

Ans. — My  recollection  is  that  this  lithograph  gives  a  side- 
view  of  one  of  the  main  buildings,  out-houses  attached,  and 
stabling. 

Int.  46. — Is  this  building,  the  side-view  of  Avhich  is  expose;! 
in  the  lithograph,  one  of  the  buildings  you  have  mentioned  as 
visited  or  noticed  by  you  ? 

Ans. — The  main  building  to  the  left,  in  the  lithograph,  is 
the  officers'  quarters. 


231 


Int.  47. — Were  or  were  not  the  officers'  quarters  and  store- 
Louse  built  of  square  timber  ? 

Aiu. — The  logs  had  been  faced  ;  I  cannot  recollect  whether 
they  had  been  squared  or  not. 

Int.  48. — State  what  position,  relatively,  the  valleys  of  Col- 
vile  and  Walla- Walla  bear  to  the  country  east  of  the  Cascade 
Range  and  the  mining  regions,  and  their  relative  value  to  the 
surrounding  country  as  agricultural  and  farming  sections. 

Ans. — Walla-Walla  and  Colvile  Valleys  are  the  only  two 
agricultural  districts  east  of  the  Cascade  Mountains  in  Wash- 
ington Territory;  Colvile  Valley  bears  the  same  relation  to  the 
northern  mines  in  British  Columbia  that  Walla-Walla  Valley 
does  to  the  southern  mines  in  Idaho  Territory. 

Int.  49. — IIow  does  the  value  of  the  agricultural  lands  of 
these  two  valleys  compare  with  the  value  of  lands  in  the  coun- 
try there  and  east  of  the  Cascade  and  west  of  the  Bitter-Root 
and  Rocky  Mountains? 

Ans. — Walla-Walla  and  Colvile  Valleys  embrace  the  only 
two  large  bodies  of  agricultural  or  valuable  lands  east  of  the 
Cascade  Mountains  in  Washington  Territory ;  other  lands  in 
the  same  district  of  country  are  available  for  grazing  pur- 
poses alone. 

Int.  50. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  prices  of  transport- 
ation on  the  Columbia  river  and  in  the  interior,  prior  to  the 
gold  excitement?  Also  state  what  was  the  price  per  ton  of 
freight  from  Portland  to  old  Walla-Walla,  and  what  would 
have  been  a  fair  price  for  freight,  at  the  rates  then  charging 
per  pound,  from  old  Walla-Walla  to  Fort  Boise? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir.  The  price  of  freight  per  ton  from  Portland 
to  old  Walla- Walla  was  from  ^120  to  $130,  and  a  fair  charge  of 
freight  from  old  Walla- Walla  to  Fort  Boise  would  be  20  cents 
per  pound. 


Direct  Examination  Resumed. 


Int.  1. — Are  there  any  rocks  or  stones  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Fort  Colvile,  as  marble,  sandstone,  quartz,  or  any  other? 


!i  '1 


232 


f'A 


lli.  '■  is;  ■.ii 


11^ 


Ann. — I  observed  nothing  but  some  limestone.  The  lime- 
stone was  from  12  to  15  miles  from  Fort  Colvilc. 

Int.  2. — Wliat  is  the  character  or  nature  of  the  earth  about 
FortColvile? 

Ana. — Some  santly  loam,  and  a  good  deal  of  gravel,  called 
gravelly  land. 

Int.  3. — Did  you  notice  any  quartz  rocks  there,  on  the  banks 
of  the  river  ? 

Ans. — I  did  i.ot  observe  any,  and  none  have  been  discovered 
to  my  knowledge. 

Int.  4. — Is  it  inferable,  because  of  a  house  being  clap- 
boarded,  that  it  necessarily  follows  that  the  house  is  an  ex- 
pensive one  or  intended  for  expensive  uses? 

Ans. — Quite  the  reverse. 

Int.  5. — You  said  you  had  some  impression  of  seeing  a  bas- 
tion at  Fort  Colvile ;  was  the  thing  of  which  you  thus  speak 
a  large  projecting  mass  of  earth  or  masonry  at  the  angle  of  a 
fortified  work,  which  is  the  definition  of  a  bastion  in  the 
dictionary  before  me? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Int.  6. — Did  you  see  any  guns  mounted  on  that  or  any  other 
fortifi'^ation  at  Fort  Colvile,  or  any  port-holes  for  guns? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Int.  7.-  -What,  so  far  as  you  recollect,  was  the  particular 
thing  at  Fort  Colvile  dignified  in  the  cross-interrogatory  by 
the  name  of  bastion  ? 

Ans. — It  was  what  on  the  frontier  is  called  a  small  block- 
house, built  of  logs,  and  capable  of  containing  six  or  eight 
men,  for  defence  against  Indians. 

Int.  8. — When,  in  the  course  of  the  cross-examination,  you 
spoke  of  the  agricultural  capabilities)  of  the  valleys  of  the 
Colvile  and  the  Walla- Walla,  did  you  or  not  intend  that  word 
agricultural  as  implying  tillage  only  ? 

Ans. — I  meant  tillable  land  only. 

Int.  9. — From  your  knowledge  of  land  and  its  uses,  do  you 
or  not  say  that  land  may  well  be  profitably  used  in  grazing  as 
in  tillage? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 


233 


Int.  10. — What  proportion,  in  your  judgment,  a«<  convorsnnt 
with  the  ])iirchiisc  and  wale  of  land,  of  the  surface  of  Wash- 
ington Territory  lias  passed  into  the  hands  of  private  pro- 
prietors ? 

uiitH. — Not  over  one-thousandth  part. 

Int.  11. — What  is  the  present  population  of  Washington 
Territory,  as  estimated  at  the  present  time? 

Ans, — About  twenty  thousand. 

Int.  12. — What,  in  your  estimation,  is  the  extent  of  surface 
of  land  in  the  Colvile  Valley? 

Ans. — About  three  hundred  square  miles. 

Int.  13. — What  is,  at  this  time,  the  price  per  acre  of  land 
of  average  quality,  for  mere  agricultural  purposes,  in  the  valley 
of  the  Colvile? 

Ans. — Value  of  land  there  is  entirely  estimated  by  the 
amount  of  improvements  on  it? 

Int.  14. — If  unimproved,  has  it  any  marketable  value  per 
acre;  and,  if  so,  how  much? 

Ans. — Not  aware  that  it  has  above  government  price,  there 
,eing  so  much  subject  to  public  entry. 

Int.  15. — What  is  the  superficial  extent  of  the  land  of  the 
valley  of  the  Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — About  a  thousand  square  miles. 

Int.  16. — What  is  the  value  per  acre  of  the  average  land,  for 
agricultural  use,  in  the  valley  of  the  Walla- Walla? 

Ans. — From  $5  to  ^20  per  acre,  owing  to  the  character  of 
the  lands  and  the  improvements. 

Int.  17. — If  the  land  be  wholly  unimproved,  what  is  its 
market  value?  • 

Ans. — Except  a  few  choice  localities,  not  above  government 
price. 

Int.  18. — Is  there  or  not  a  river  named  Walla- Walla,  from 
which  the  valley  derives  its  name? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  19. — At  what  distance  from  the  old  English  post  of 
Walla-Walla  is  the  town  of  Walla- Walla,  and  hew  is  it  situated 
relatively  to  it? 

Ans. — The  town  of  Walla- Walla  is  situated  fn  the  centre 
of  the  valley,  30  miles  distant  from  the  old  English  post. 


m 

Ill  '.  ,  ■; 


I.-'  I. 


II:! 


ill 


234 

/w^  20.— Is  the  United  States  post  of  Walla- Walla  in  the 
same  place  as  the  Hudson's  Lay  Company's  post ;  and  if  not, 
how  far  off?  • 

Ans. — No,  sir;  it  is  about  thirty  miles  distant,  in  the  inte- 
rior, one  mile  from  the  town  of  Walla,  Walla. 

Int.  21. — How  does  the  river  Walla- Walla  run,  relatively 
to  the  Columbia? 

A71S. — The  Walla-Walla  river,  in  its  course  from  the  Blue 
Mountain  to  where  it  empties  into  the  Columbia,  makes  a 
right  angle  with  the  course  of  the  Columbia,  below  the  mouth 
of  Snake  river,  which  also  flows  into  the  Columbia.  The  Blue 
Mountain  is  on  the  south  side  of  the  Columbia.  From  the 
point  where  the  Walla-Walla  enters  the  Columbia,  the  course 
of  the  Columbia  is  nearly  east  and  west,  and  that  of  the 
Walla-Walla  from  south  to  north. 

Int.  22. — Is  Wallula  the  name  of  a  river,  or  a  landij  g  only  ? 

An8. — Tiie  name  of  a  steamboat  landing  only. 

I7it.  23. — How  is  this  landing  situated  relatively  to  the 
Walla-Walla  and  tl-e  Columbia  rivers  ? 

Ans. — It  is  situated  in  the  angle  made  by  the  two  rivers, 
and  about  half  a  mile  above  the  mouth  of  the  Walla- Walla 
river. 

Int.  24. — Whon  you  first  saw  this  landing-place,  in  1859, 
was  there  any  wharf,  pier,  jetty,  or  other  such  structure  at  the 
landing-place  ? 

Ans. — Nothing  of  the  kind,  either  then  or  since. 

Int.  25. — Was  it  or  not  simply  the  bank  of  the  river  in  its 
natural  state  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

I)it.  26. — Was  there  at  that  time  any  enclosure  of  this  land- 
ing, either  above  or  below,  or  any  other  sign  of  private  ap- 
propriation? 

Ans. — None  whatever. 

Int.  26  n5. — Has  any  wharf  been  co'^iStructed  or  placed  there 
since  ;  and  if  so,  of  what  character,  and  by  whom  ? 

Ans. — There  has  been  no  improvement  made  of  that 
character.     The  Government  has  a  wharf-boat  moored  there. 

Int.  27. — In  the  last  cross-interrogatory  there  is  question 
of  freight  from  Portland  to  old  Walla-Walla,  and  from  old 


235 


Walla- Walla  to  Fort  Boise,  "prior  to  the  gold  excitement;" 
what  year  do  you  intend  by  that? 

Ans. — I  allude  to  the  years  1858  and  1850;  ISo'J,  more 
particularly. 

Int.  28. — State  particularly  what  freigh':  you  speak  of  from 
Portland  to  old  Walla-Walla,  how  much  of  such  freight  there 
was,  by  whom  transported,  and  where  landed,  and  what  your 
means  of  knowledge  were  on  that  whole  subject. 

Ans. — Quartermasters'  and  Indian  Department  freight,  of 
goods  belonging  to  the  Government.  The  amount  Avas  very 
limited,  sufficient  only  to  employ  one  small  steamboat,  making 
weekly  trips  from  the  Des  Chutes  to  Wallula.  The  sstcamboat 
was  private  property,  belonging  to  Thompson,  Coe  >!c  Co. 
Freight  was  landed  at  Wallula,  the  most  of  it,  but  a  portion 
was  carried  above,  up  Snake  river.  My  knowledge  on  the 
subject  is  derived  from  my  having  made  shipments  as  Indian 


agent. 


Int.  20. — What  amount  of  freight  at  that  time,  bv  whom 
transported,  and  on  whose  account,  went  from  old  Walla- 
Walla  to  Fort  Boise  ? 

Ans. — I  know  of  none  being  transported  there  until  after 


the  d 


iscovery  oi 


rold. 


Int.  30. — Please  explain  what  you  intended  by  stating,  in 
answer  to  the  cross-interrogatory  No.  50,  that  freight  would 
be  twenty  cents  per  pound  from  old  Walla-Walla  to  Fort 
Boise,  when  it  now  appears  that  no  goods  were  transported. 

Ans. — I  meant  that  that  would  be  about  a  reasonable  price 
if  there  had  b  )on  goods  to  be  transported  at  that  time,  based 
on  the  prices  of  transportation  and  labor  since  that  time. 

Int.  31. — By  Avhat  route,  and  in  what  manner,  would  such 
freight  have  been  conveyed  from  old  Walla- Walla  lu  Fort 
Boise  ? 

Ans. — It  would  be  transported  across  the  mountai.i.i  upon 
what  is  called  the  old  emigrant  road,  the  road  made  bv  the 
first  emigrants  that  came  into  Oregon.  It  could  bo  trans- 
ported on  pack  animals,  or  in  wagons. 

Lit.  32. — You  have  stated  that  your  estimation  of  what 
such  freigiit  would  be,  if  it  had  existed,  is  founded  on  know- 


is. 


m 


t  !'*i 


l:!:i 


236 

ledge  of  the  prices  since  1859.     Are  the  prices  the  same  as 
before  1859 ;  and  if  not,  in  Avhat  respect  do  they  differ  ? 

A)is. — Prices  have  been  reduced  since,  owing  to  competition 
and  the  large  amount  of  freight  to  be  transported.  In  1859, 
the  amount  of  freight  to  be  transported  was  so  limited  there 
were  no  persons  engaged  in  land  transportation. 

Int.  33. — As  to  transportation  from  above  the  Dalles  to 
old  Walla- Walla,  how  does  the  price  of  freight,  since  1859, 
range  as  compared  with  the  price  at  that  time? 

Am. — It  is  greatly  reduced,  having  been  as  low  as  $20  a 
ton,  when  there  were  opposition  boats  running. 

Int.  34. — Since  1859,  how  many  boats,  and  how  many  times 
in  the  course  of  a  year,  touch  at  Wallula  ? 

Ans. — The  number  of  boats  gradually  increased,  first 
making  semi-weekly  and  tri-weekly  trips  to  Wallula,  and  for 
the  last  two  or  three  years  making  daily  trips,  except  a  por- 
tion of  the  winter  season,  when  the  water  would  be  very  low, 
scarcity  of  business,  or  ice  in  the  river. 

Int.  35. — State  whether  or  not,  within  your  knowledge  as 
a  shipper,  or  otherwise  within  your  knowledge,  any  person  or 
company  has  claimed  dockage,  wharfage,  or  tolls  of  any  sort, 
on  account  of  boats  touching  at  the  so-called  landing  of  Wal- 
lula. 

Anfi. — I  have  no  knowledge  of  anything  of  the  kind. 

Int.  36. — Describe  by  name  and  locality  the  landing-places 
referred  to,  in  the  cross-examination,  as  existing  above  Wal- 
lula. 

Ans. — White  Bluffs  is  about  60  miles  above,  on  the  Colum- 
bia river;  Palouse  Rapids  about  the  same  distance  up  the 
Snake  river  ;  Lewiston  about  160  miles  up  Snake  river  ;  these 
places  arc  in  an  easterly  direction  from  Wallula. 

Int.  37. — Relatively  to  the  business  of  the  northern  mines, 
how  far  does  competition  exist  belween  the  four  landing-places 
of  Lewiston,  White  Bluffs,  Palouse  Rapids,  and  Wallula? 

Ans. — Nearly  all  the  freight  for  the  northern  mines  goes 
above  Wallula  to  the  three  points  named. 

Int.  38. — Whether  or  not,  below  Wallula,  there  is  a  landing- 
place  at  Umatilla,  and  how  far,  relatively  to  the  southern 


237 

mines,  there  is  actual  or  possible  competition  between  Uma- 
tilla and  AYallula  ? 

Ans. — Umatilla  has  competed  so  successfully  as  to  obtain 
the  greater  share  of  the  trade  of  the  southern  mines. 

Int.  39. — From  your  knowledge  of  the  progress  of  settlement 
of  the  new  States  and  Territories,  and  of  the  rise  and  growth 
of  settlements  on  rivers,  whether  or  not  the  growtli  of  such 
settlements  depends  more  or  less  on  the  combination  between 
natural  advantages  of  locality  and  the  enterprise  of  individ- 
uals ? 

(Mr.  liander  objects  to  this  question  as  rssuming  facts,  and 
being  argumentative.) 
Ans. — Of  course. 

Int.  40. — Whether  or  not  the  value  of  landing-places  and 
town-sites  on  the  rivers  in  Washington  Territory  is  more  or 
less  prospective  and  speculative? 
Ans. — It  is. 

Int.  41. — You  state  in  cross-examination  that  a  mile  square, 
at  old  Walla-Walla,  lias  become  valuable  since  1859,  because 
of  the  landing.  State  Avhat  portion  of  the  mile  square,  having 
the  old  fort  for  its  centre,  has  thus  been  raised  in  value. 

Ans. — That  portion  in  the  vicinity  of  the  old  fort  that  has 
been  built  upon.  The  building  of  the  trading-housc<  estab- 
lished the  landing  there. 

Int.  42. — Who  were  the  persons  carrying  on  trade  at  that 
point? 

Ans. — I  am  only  personally  acquainted  with  a  few;  I  sup- 
pose there  are  twenty  or  thirty  persons  engaged  in  different 
branches  of  trade. 

Int.  43. — So  far  as  you  know,  are  they  not  private  individ- 
uals, engaged  in  their  own  business. 
Ans. — They  are. 

Int.  44. — What  proportion  of  the  mile  square,  having  the 
old  fort  for  its  centre,  is  occupied  by  the  buildings  of  these 
traders  ? 
Ans. — About  80  acres. 

Int.  45. — What,  in  your  judgment,  is  the  average  value  of 
the  residue  of  the  mile  square  per  acre? 


238 


Ansi. — It  has  no  value,  except  a  speculative  one. 

Inf.  4<5. — Has  the  Hudson's  Bay  Companj',  to  your  knowl- 
edge, any  enclosures  on  this  mile  square,  other  than  the  site 
which  the  structures  of  the  fort  occupy  ? 

Ans. — None. 

Inf.  47. — You  stated  in  cross-examination  that  at  one  time 
$150  a  month  store- rent  had  been  paid.  State  how  long  time, 
by  whom,  and  to  whom. 

Aniii. — It  was  in  18(52  or  1803,  during  the  first  mining  ex- 
citement ;  I  understood  from  Mr.  Tatem  that  he  and  his  part- 
ner wore  then  receiving  that  rent ;  I  was  not  ac(|uainted  with 
the  party  occup^'ing  the  building  and  paj  ing  it ;  I  have  no 
knowledge  of  the  length  of  time  stores  rented. 

Int.  48. — What  is  the  present  rent  for  similar  storage  ? 

Ann. — I  would  suppose  about  $50  a  month. 

Inf.  49. — What  would  have  been  the  rent  prior  to  1862  ? 

Ans:. — There  was  so  little  business  done  there  then,  there 
was  no  fixed  value. 

Int.  50. — What  are  the  dimensions  and  capacity  of  storage 
of  the  building  or  buildings  which  you  rate  at  $50  a  month? 

An$. — A  store-room,  in  a  business  locality,  of  from  60  to 
80  feet  by  25  or  30. 

lit.  51. — Do  you  now  speak  of  a  particular  store-room,  or 
store-rooms  in  general? 

Ans. — I  speak  of  store-rooms  in  general,  at  business  points 
in  that  coun-  -y. 

Int.  52. — Of  what  material  would  such  a  store-room  as  you 
speak  of  be  constructed? 

Ans. — Of  wood,  generally. 

I)tt.  53. — What  would  be  the  cost  of  construction  of  such  a 
building  ? 

J».>.— About  $2,500. 

Int.  54. — In  the  cross-examination,  you  spoke  of  a  forty-acre 
lot,  of  tillable  quality  land,  about  two  and  a  half  miles  from 
old  Fort  W^alla-Walla.  How  much  good  tillage  land  is  there 
in  those  intervening  two  and  a  half  miles? 

Ans. — There  is  none  at  all.     . 


(.1 


Ni; 


239 


Cross- Examination  Resumed. 

Int.  1. — Are  not  the  square  buildings,  of  two  stories  high, 
erected  at  the  corners  of  stockaded  forts,  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  command  by  the  fire  from  them  one  or  two  sides  of  a  stock- 
ade, usually  called  and  understood  to  be  bastions  in  Washing- 
ton Territory  and  the  Indian  country  of  the  United  States  ? 

(Mr.  Gushing  objects  to  the  question,  because  the  witness  is 
not  a  military  expert.) 

Ans. — Usually  called  bastions,  sometimes  block-houses. 

Int.  2. — You  have  spoken,  in  answer  to  interrogatory  13,  as 
to  the  value  of  land  for  mere  agricultural  purposes  iu  Colvile 
Valley.  Do  you  mean  to  include  in  the  term  agricultural 
both  grazing  and  tillage  lands  ?  . 

Ans. — I  can't  say  that  I  do. 

Int.  3. — Do  you  wish  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  at 
the  present  time  there  is  no  difference  in  value  in  the  Colvile 
Valley,  between  land  capable  of  tillage  and  that  suitable  only 
for  pasturage? 

Ans. — In  the  Colvile  Valley  proper  there  is  but  little  dif- 
ference. 

Int.  4. — When  were  you  last  in  the  Colvile  Valley  ? 

Ans. — Late  in  the  fall  of  1859. 

Int.  5. — Can  you  answer,  as  to  your  own  knowledge,  any- 
thing as  to  the  value  of  land  in  Colvile  Valley,  since  18G0, 
per  acre  ? 

Ans. — I  can  only  speak  of  my  intercourse,  business  rela- 
tions, with  residents  of  the  valley. 

Int.  6. — With  how  many  of  them  have  you  talked,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  value  of  the  land,  since  1860  ? 

Ans. — Have  had  repeated  conversations,  I  suppose,  with 
fifteen  or  twenty  of  the  early  settlers  there. 

Int.  7. — When  was  the  last  conversation  you  had  with  any 
person  in  reference  to  the  value  of  land  in  Colvile  Valley,  and 
who  was  it  ? 

Ans. — With  H.  P.  Isaacs  and  Mr.  Lasiter,  of  Walla- Walla, 


\M  !■  M'^ 


240 


■'H'm 


li  :  I  !.  *'! 


i'? 


ir. 


§■■  ^' 


Ml 


last  February ;  Mr.  Isaacs  being  the  owner  of  a  farm  in  that 
valley. 

Int.  8. — Have  you  ever  had  any  conversation  with  any  one 
with  reference  to  the  value  of  lands  immediately  around  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company's  Fort  at  Colvile,  and  claimed  by 
them? 

Ans. — I  cannot  now  remember  having  had  any  special  con- 
versation with  reference  to  those  lands. 

Int.  9. — Have  not  your  conversations  been  with  reference 
to  lands  lying  around  and  near  the  United  States  post  in  Col- 
vile Valley  ? 

Ans. — My  conversations  were  generally  about  the  improved 
lands,  most  of  which  are  in  the  vicinity  of  the  post. 

Int.  10. — Have  there  been  any  United  States  surveys  ex- 
tended over  Colvile  Valley  ? 

Ans. — None,  unless  made  during  last  summer,  since  my 
absence. 

Int.  11. — Where  there  are  no  surveys,  and  no  title  in  case 
of  sale  of  lands,  does  the  vendor  transfer  or  convey  anything 
but  a  mere  possession  ? 

Ans  — He  does  not. 

Int.  12. — Have  you,  then,  in  what  you  have  stated  in  refer- 
ence to  the  value  of  land  around  the  United  States  military 
post  in  Colvile  Valley,  had  any  reference  to  the  value  of  lands 
to  which  a  title  could  be  had  ? 

Ans. — All  the  inhabitants  in  Colvile  expect  to  perfect  their 
titles  under  the  Government  by  purchase,  under  the  pre- 
emption laws. 

Int.  13. — Do  you  wish  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  a 
man  who  sells  his  possession  of  land  ever  expects  to  obtain  a 
title  from  the  United  States? 

(Mr.  Cushing  objects  to  the  question,  inasmuch  as  it  puts 
words  into  the  witness's  mouth  which  he  has  never  uttered.) 

Ans. — I  don't  exactly  understand  the  question. 

Int.  14. — Do  you  understand  the  difference  between  a  squat- 
ter upon  land,  and  one  who  owns  and  can  make  title  to  it  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  15. — Does  the  fact  that  the  vendor  being  in  possession 


241 

and  able  to  make  a  good  title  make  any  difference  in  the  price 
of  the  land  which  he  occupies  and  the  land  equally  good  and 
■well  situated  occupied  by  a  s(|uatter? 

A71S. — There  would  be  a  difference  ;  in  some  localities,  very 
great ;  and  in  others,  very  little. 

Int.  15  a. — Do  you  know  whether  or  no  the  Indian  title  to 
lands  in  the  Colvile  Valley  has  been  extinguished  so  as  to 
open  them  to  settlement  ? 

Arts. — I  don't  know ;  I  don't  know  whether  they  made  any 
treaties  last  summer  or  not. 

Int.  10. — Do  3''ou  not  know  that  there  are  no  lands  i?ubject 
to  public  entry,  at  Government  price,  in  the  Colvile  Valley, 
at  the  present  ti/ne,  or  during  the  last  few  years  ? 

Ans. — There  was  none  at  the  time  I  left  Walla- Walla ;  but 
the  citizens  of  Colvile  Valley  liave  been  anticipating  every 
year,  for  three  years  past,  being  able  to  perfect  their  titles. 

Inf.  17. — Do  you  not  know  good  tillable  lands  have  been 
sold  in  the  Walla- Walla  Valley  for  .$50  per  acre  ? 

Ans. — Have  known  farms  to  be  sold,  with  the  improvements, 
at  th?t  price,  including  dwelling-house,  out-houses,  barns,  and 
fencing,  160  acres  in  the  tract.  Several  acres  sold  at  this 
price.     They  had  fine  buildings  for  tlia.t  country. 

Int.  18. — V^ould  not  any  good  land,  unimproved,  in  the 
valley  of  the  Walla-Walla,  capable  of  tillage,  be  worth  at  the 
present  time  from  $10  to  $20  per  acre? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Int.  19. — How  much  is  such  land  worth? 

Ans. — It  would  be  difficult  for  me  to  put  an  estimate  on 
unimproved  lands. 

Int.  20. — Was  there  any  wharf,  wharf-boat,  or  jetty  at 
Umatilla  landing,  when  you  were  there  last? 

Ans. — There  was  a  Avharf-boat  only. 

Int.  21. — When  were  you  last  at  White  Bluffs? 

Ans. — It  has  been  three  or  four  years. 

Int.  22. — Was  there  any  wharf,  wharf-boat,  or  jetty  at 
White  Bluffs  when  you  were  there  ? 

Ans. — No. 
16  H 


n 


-I"! 


';!     ■'i.tliiri' 


242 

Int.  23. — Was  there  any  hcuse  at  White  Bluffs  when  you 
were  there  ? 

A  )!.<<. — No. 

Int.  24. — Was  tlicre  any  wharf,  wharf-boat,  jetty,  or  any 
house  at  Palouse  Landing,  Avhcn  you  saw  it  last? 

Ans. — There  Avas  one  house  only. 

Int.  25. — AVhat  was  the  size  of  that  house,  and  by  whom 
was  it  built? 

A71S. — I  do  not  remember  the  size;  I  am  under  the  impres- 
sion that  the  house  had  been  built  by  the  proprietors  of  the 
ferrv. 

ft/ 

Int.  20. — Was  it  anything  else  but  a  small  log-house? 

Ans. — It  was  more  than  that.  • 

Int.  27.— What  was  it  ? 

Ans. — A  frame  building,  with  considerable  storage  room, 
freight  being  frequently  stored  there. 

Int.  2(S. — In  estimating  the  cost  of  transportation  of  freight 
from  old  Fort  Walla-Walla  to  Fort  Boise,  did  you  not  take 
into  consideration  the  price  paid  by  you  for  transportation  by 
land,  at  the  time  you  speak  of,  from  old  Walla- Walla  to  the 
Indian  agency  at  LapAvai  ? 

Ans. — I  did.  Lapwai  is  twelve  miles  above  the  point  where 
the  Koos-koo-ski  or  Clear  Water  empties  into  the  Snake  river, 
beinff  on  the  Koos-koo-ski  or  Clear  Water. 

Int.  21). — What  did  you  pay  per  pound  for  transportation? 

Ans. — Six  cents. 

Int.  30. — Is  not  Wallula  the  only  landing,  of  those  you 
have  mentioned,  on  the  Columbia  and  the  Snake,  that  has  a 
productive  country  back  of  it  ? 

Avs. — Umatilla  landing  has  a  small  amount  of  productive 
country  back  of  it,  but  not  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  it. 
But  there  is  no  point  compares  with  Walla-Walla  in  that 
respect. 

Int.  CI. — Do  not  unoccupied  lots,  in  new  towns,  that  bear  a 
speculative  value,  have  an  absolute  value  and  a  price  asked 
for  them? 

.rl«».— Not  always. 


243 


Examination-in- Chief  Resumed. 

Int.  1. — At  the  close  of  your  first  cross-examination  by  Mr. 
Lander,  he  put  a  question  to  you  which  he  prefatorily  intro- 
duced by  stating  that  it  was  new  matter,  namely,  cross- 
interrogatories  48  and  49,  in  which  inquiry  was  made  of  you 
how  the  value  of  the  valleys  of  Colville  and  Walla- Walla,  as 
agricultural  and  farming  sections,  compared  with  the  value  of 
lands  in  the  country  east  of  the  Cascades  and  west  of  the 
Bitter  Root  and  Rocky  Mountains,  as  to  which  you  made 
answer.  Have  you  any  personal  knowledge  of  the  country 
west  of  the  valley  of  the  Columbia  river  in  the  region  of  Fort 
Colvile  (assuming  that  to  be  the  region  you  designate  as  the 
Colvile  Valley)  and  the  country  intervening  between  that 
valley  and  the  Cascade  Mountains, 'so  as  to  enable  you,  from 
personal  observation,  to  compare  the  lands  of  one  of  those 
regions  with  the  lands  of  the  other? 

Ans. — I  could  not,  from  personal  observation,  compare  the 
two  regions,  not  having  visited  the  region  between  Colvile 
Valley  and  the  Cascade  Mountains. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  any  personal  knowledge  of  the  whole 
region  of  country  between  the  Colvile  Valley  and  the  Bitter 
Root  Mountains,  so  as  to  enable  you  to  speak,  from  personal 
knowledge,  as  to  the  character  of  the  lands  in  all  that  region  ? 

Ans. — My  knowledge  of  that  portion  of  the  country  alluded 
to,  from  personal  observation,  is  very  limited.  Have  roda  over 
it  very  hastily. 

I7it.  3. — Please  to  state  what  portion  of  the  country  between 
the  mouth  of  the  Walla-Walla  on  the  south.  Fort  Colvile  on 
the  north,  the  Columbia  river  on  the  west,  and  the  Rocky 
Mountains  on  the  east,  you  have  personally  observed,  so  as  to  be 
able  to  state,  by  absolute  exclusion,  that  in  all  that  vast  region 
east  of  the  Colville  and  Walla-Walla  valleys,  no  agricultural 
or  farming  lands  exist,  and  grazing  alone? 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  the  question,  because  it  puts  words 
into  the  witness's  mouth,  and  because  the  witness  has  not  stated 
that  there  was  no  such  land  in  th )  section  of  country  spoken  of.) 


244 


M'^' 


f    ;^      .  ■ 


(Mv.  Cusliing  adheres  to  his  question  because,  although  it 
docs  not  profess,  as  the  objection  implies,  to  repeat  any  words 
of  the  witnoss,  yet  it  does  apply  to  his  statcmen'.  in  answer  to 
cross-interrogatory  49,  that  the  "  Walla- Walla  and  Colvilo 
Valleys  embrace  the  only  two  large  bodies  of  agricultural  or 
valuable  lands  east  of  the  Cascade  Mountains  in  Washington 
Territory,"  and  adds  "other  lands  in  the  same  district  of 
country  are  available  for  grazing  purposes  alone.'') 

(Mr.  Lander  renews  his  objection  to  the  interrogatory,  on 
the  further  ground  that  the  witness  has  said  nothing  of  a 
country  west  of  the  Ilocky  Mountains  alone,  but  of  a  country 
west  of  the  Bitter  Root  and  Rocky  jNIountains,  and  of  no 
country  whatsoever  lying  east  of  the  Bitter  Root  Mountains.) 

(The  Commissioners'  attention  is  respectfully  called  to  the 
fact  that  Mr.  Lander,  in  the  49th  cross-interrogatory,  calls 
for  comparison  of  the  Colvile  and  Walla- Walla  Valleys  as  to 
the  whole  region  east  of  the  Cascades  and  west  of  the  Bitter 
Root  and  Ilocky  Mountains.  If  the  Bitter  Root  and  Rocky 
Mountains  are  identical,  and  represent  one  and  the  same  line 
of  longitude,  then  his  objection  is  pertinent;  but  if  there  be 
any  space  of  territory  east  of  the  Bitter  Root  Mountains  and 
west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  then  that  territory  is  compre- 
hended by  his  interrogatory,  and  by  the  answer  of  the  wit- 
ness, and  is  a  fit  subject  of  explanation.) 

Ans. — I  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  the  country  lying 
between  the  Bitter  Root  and  Rocky  Mountains,  but  have  trav- 
elled over  the  balance  of  the  country  designiied,  but  never 
gave  any  special  attention  to  lands  except  in  the  Colvile  and 
Walla- Walla  Valleys  and  the  Nez  Perc<5s  reservation. 

Int.  4. — What  do  you  understand  by  the  Bitter  Root  Moun- 
tains ?  Is  it  a  ridge  or  a  dispersed  body  of  mountains  ?  If  a 
ridge,  does  it  run  north  and  south  or  east  and  west;  and  if  it 
be  a  ridge,  where  is  its  point  of  commencement,  and  where 
does  it  end ;  and  what  relation,  if  any,  have  they  to  the  Bitter 
Root  river? 

Ans. — They  are  a  separate  and  distinct  range  of  mountains; 
it  runs  in  a  northwardly  and  southerly  direction;  it  begins* 
near  48th  parallel;  they  have  been  called  by  early  explorers 


245 

spurs  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  The  Bitter  Root  river  flows 
through  the  Bitter  Root  Valley,  which  lies  between  the  Bitter 
Root  Mountains  and  the  Rocky  Mountains. 

Int.  fi. — Assuming,  as  you  state,  that  the  Bitter  Root  Moun- 
tains commence  at  the  48th  parallel,  near  Lake  I'end-Oreille, 
how  far  south  does  the  range  extend? 

A718. — I  should  think  between  three  or  four  hundrcfl  miles. 

Int.  6. — That  is  to  say,  some  five  or  six  degrees  of  latitude 
southwardly? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  7. — In  all  this  region  of  four  hundred  miles  in  length, 
what  proportion  of  the  land  have  you  seen  with  your  own 
eyes,  so  as  to  determine  its  quality  for  use? 

Ans. — I  have  seen  scarcely  any  south  of  the  4Gth  parallel, 
and  none  east  of  the  Bitter  Root  Mountains. 

Int.  8. — How  much  have  you  seen  of  the  tract  within  the 
large  westwardly  bend  of  the  Columbia  river,  between  the 
mouth  of  the  Walla- Walla  and  the  mouth  of  the  Spokane  ? 

Ans. — I  have  travelled  across  it,  in  difl'erent  directions,  two 
or  three  times. 

Int.  9. — How  much  have  you  seen  of  the  country  on  the 
upper  waters  of  the  Pelouse  and  the  Spokane  rivers  ? 

Ans. — I  never  made  but  one  trip  across  that  part  of  the 

country. 

A.  J.  Cain. 


Examination  of  A.  J.  Cain  resumed  hy  consent. 

Int.  1. — Have  you  any  knowledge  concerning  the  use  of 
bateaux  for  transportation  on  the  upper  waters  of  the  Colum- 
bia river  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  or  not  transported  goods,  or  caused  them 
to  be  transported,  by  such  bateaux  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  3. — At  what  time,  and  in  what  capacity  ? 

Ans. — In  the  year  1860  I  acted  in  the  capacity  of  Indian 
agent  for  Washington  Territory. 


24G 


:;;  f" 


Mil 


I"' . 


U'nii 


l!  ,1  I    ;j;, 


im 


;""!'! 


Jnt.  4, — Is  or  is  not  the  transportation  of  goods  by  bateaux 
still  continued  on  the  upper  waters  of  the  Columbia? 

Ahx. — No,  sir;  all  the  transportation  is  by  steamboat. 

Jnt.  /j. — State,  if  you  know,  why  transportation  by  steamers 
has  taken  the  place  of  transportation  by  bateaux. 

An8. — Transportation  by  steamboat  is  so  much  cheaper. 
I  built  five  four-ton  bateaux  in  1800,  for  the  purpose  of  trans- 
porting Indian  Department  goods  from  the  Des  Chutes  to  Lap- 
wai,  on  the  [Nez]  Perce  reservation,  under  the  belief  that  I 
could  save  in  transportation,  but  the  experiment  was  a  failure, 
so  far  as  economy  was  conceriicd.  I  sold  the  bateaux,  and 
shipped  by  steamboat  and  wagon.  I  employed  Indians  ex- 
clusively, with  the  exception  of  one  white  man.  I  employed 
Indians  because  it  was  cheaper. 

Int.  6. — State  whether  or  not,  during  your  knowledge  of 
that  part  of  the  country,  there  has  been  any  impediment  to 
prevent  anybody — the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  or  anybody 
else — from  transporting  goods  by  bateaux  on  that  river,  apart 
from  the  question  of  expense. 

Arts. — I  am  satisfied  there  has  not,  as  there  are  a  nnmber 
of  persons,  besides  the  Oregon  Steam  Navigation  Company, 
engaged  in  transportation  from  Portland  to  the  Upper  Colum- 
bia and  Snake  river. 

Int.  7. — State,  if  you  know,  whether  or  not  the  steamers 
plying  on  the  Upper  Columbia  have  any  special  privileges  as 
such. 

Ans. — None  that  I  am  aware  of,  except  being  able  to  com- 
mand a  large  capital. 

Int.  8. — State,  if  you  know,  whether  or  not  these  steamers 
are  common  carriers,  taking  all  such  lawful  freight  as  offers. 

Ans. — They  are  common  carriers,  and  take  all  lawful  freight 
offered. 

Int.  9. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  portages  in  that 


region  .'' 


Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  10. — State,  if  you  know,  whether  any  of  those  portages 
are  or  have  been  obstructed. 
Ans. — The  portages  on  the  Washington  Territory  side  of 


247 

the  Columbia  river  have  never  been  obstructed.  I  am  not 
familiar  Avitli  the  Oregon  side,  on  the  Lower  Columbia;  but 
the  portages  of  the  Upper  Columbia,  on  both  sides,  both  Ore- 
gon and  Washington,  have  never  been  obstructed. 

Cro88-U.rnni  inntion. 


Int.  1. — Are  there  any  steamboats  running  on  the  upper 
waters  of  the  Columbia,  on  that  stretch  of  the  river,  of  about 
one  hundred  and  twenty  miles,  between  White  Blufl's  and  Fort 
Colvile? 

Ana. — No,  sir. 

Int.  2. — At  the  time  you  speak  of,  at  which  you  constructed 
bateaux,  for  the  purpose  of  transportation,  what  did  you  pay 
per  ton  for  transportation  by  steamer  from  the  Des  Chutes  to 
Wallulp. ;  and  what  per  pound  for  land  transportation,  from 
Wallula  to  Lapwai  ? 

Ans. — My  recollection  is  about  ^75  a  ton,  by  measurement, 
from  the  Des  Chutes  to  old  Fort  Walla-Walla.  I  paid  six  cents 
per  pou)iLl,  for  land  transportation,  from  old  Fort  Walla- Walla 
to  Lapv,  ;ii.  ^ 

Int.  3. — Was  this,  at  the  time  y©u  speak  of,  in  the  former 
part  of  your  examination,  as  being  before  the  gold  excitement? 

Ans. — Yes;  prior  to  the  gold  excitement. 

Int.  4. — Has  not  the  Oregon  Steam  Navigation  Company, 
to  whom  the  steamers  plying  on  the  Upper  Columbia  belong, 
control  and  ownership,  through  the  stockholders  of  the  rail- 
roads at  the  Cascade  Portage,  on  both  sides  of  the  river,  and 
of  the  only  railroad  at  the  Dalles  portage? 

Ans. — Members  of  that  Company  claim  the  ownership  of 
the  land  on  the  Oregon  side  of  the  Cascade  Portage,  but  never 
had  any  exclusive  control  on  the  Washington  side,  beyond  the 
control  of  the  railroad  built  by  themselves. 

Int.  5. — Does  not  the  railroad,  on  the  Washington  side  o^ 
the  Cascade  Portage,  obstruct  the  landing  of  freight  at  some 
stages  of  the  water  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  6. — Is  not  the  whole  of  the  land  on  the  Cascade  Port- 


'I' . 


M* '  i 


.'V-v'l 


248 

ago,  including'  the  landings  claimed  by  donation  or  pre- 
emption claimants,  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and 
as  United  States  military  reservations,  the  only  privilege 
granted  through  these  lands  being  a  right  of  way  b^  the  rail- 
road and  a  wagon  road  ? 

Alls. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  7. — Can  goods  be  transported  r.p  the  Columbia  river, 
without  passing  over  these  different  portages  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Examination-in-  Chief  Resumed. 

Int.  1. — Are  not  the  three  railroads,  of  which  you  have 
spoken,  one  at  the  Dalles,  and  two  at  the  Cascades,  public 
railroads  for  the  transportation  of  passengers  and  freight  ? 

Ans. — They  are. 

Int.  2. — Is  there  not  a  wagon  road  at  these  portages  ? 

Ans. — Yes  ;  there  is  a  wagon  road  on  each  side  of  the  river 
at  the  Cascades,  as  I  know,  having  been  over  it.  The  one  on 
the  AVashington  side  has  always  been  a  public  highway.  There 
is  also  a  wagon  road  at  the  Dalles  Postage,  which  is  a  public 
highway.  ' 

Int.  3. — Whether  or  not  the  means  of  transportation  across 
these  portages,  for  wagons  or  pack  animals,  or  for  the  backs 
of  men,  are  as  good  as  they  were  prior  to  the  construction  of 
those  railroads? 

Ans. — They  are,  in  fact,  better. 

Int.  4. — Whether  or  no<;  any  person  may  not  now  pass  those 
portages  with  pack-animals  or  a  pack  on  his  back  ? 

Ans. — I  know  that  they  can  on  the  Washington  Territory 
side. 

Int.  5. — You  spoke  of  i  landing  at  the  Casc"des  being  oc- 
cupied by  the  railroad ;  whether  or  not  there  are  other  land- 
ings there  ?     And  if  so,  what  ? 

Ans. — Another  landing  could  be  made  just  below  or  just 
above. 


249 


Cross-Examitiation  Itcsumed. 


Int.  1. — Is  tliere  now,  or  can  there  bi  obtaineil,  a  landing 
on  the  Wasliington  Territory  side  of  the  Cascade  Portage, 
which  is  not  now  or  would  not  liave  to  ho  located  on  the  land 
of  some  private  person,  or  of  a  corporation,  or  on  the  Unitc<i 
States  military  reservation? 

(Mr.  Gushing  objects  to  this  question  as  involving  matters 
of  law  and  fact,  and  the  matter  of  fact  being  record,  not 
provable  by  this  witness.  I  note  the  same  objoctitjn  to  cross- 
interrogatory  6.) 

Ans. — There  could  not,  without  locating  on  lauds  claimed 
by  individuals,  corporated  on  the  Government. 

Int.  2. — Is  not  a  landing  necessary  for  transportation  of 
freight  above  and  below  the  falls  at  the  Cascade  Portage  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  3. — Is  not  the  upper  landing,  used  by  those  avIio  travel 
over  the  present  wagon  road  at  the  Cascade,  on  the  land 
claimed  by  a  private  individual? 

Ans. — I  am  not  aware  of  any  individual  claiming  exclusive 
control  of  the  landino;  at  the  terminus  of  the  Avac!;o!i  road. 

Int.  4. — Is  net  this  landing  on  the  land  clainird  of  a  Mr. 
Bradford  and  his  wife? 

Ans. — I  am  under  the  impression  it  is. 

(Mr.  Cushing  objects  to  the  question  and  the  answer  both.) 

Int.  5. — You  have  twice  stated,  in  reply  to  re-examination, 
that  on  the  Washington  Territory  side  there  is  a  public  high- 
way, and  that  passengers  pass  freely  as  they  please.  Do  you 
wish  to  be  understood  that  there  is  not  a  puljlic  highway  over 
which  these  passengers  can  pass,  if  they  please,  on  the  Oregon 
side  of  the  Cascade  Portage  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  positive  information  as  to  thr  j.ortage  on 
the  Oregon  side. 

Int.  G. — Was  not  the  railroad  and  common  road,  if  any,  on 
the  Oregon  side,  the  private  property  of  a  person  named 
Ruckle,  and  used  and  controlled  by  him  exclusively,  or  nearly 


f 


in 

1$ 


! 


•<i! 


ll'  ,.■■■* 


hm*m 


■i  '  .it 


250 

so,  for  tlio  accommodation  of  freight  and  passengers  on  a  cer- 
tain line  of  stetimhoats? 

Aus. — Colonel  Ruckle  exercised  ownership  over  a  portion 
of  the  land,  and  my  impression  is,  built  the  road  under  a  char- 
ter from  the  Oregon  Legislature ;  I  am  not  familiar  with  any 
exclusive  privilege  c.\(.'rcised  by  him. 

Int.  7. — You  have  stated  that  the  railroad  on  the  Washing- 
ton side  of  the  Cascade  Portage  was  a  public  railroad.  Do  you 
not  know  that  the  freight  going  up  the  river  on  a  line  of  steam- 
boots  not  connected  with  the  parties  owning  this  road  was 
taken  over  this  portage,  and  that  of  the  Dalles,  on  the  com- 
mon road? 

(Mr.  Cushing  objects  to  this  question  as  designedly  obscure, 
and  intended  to  entrap  the  witness,  and  to  introduce  matters 
of  illegal  inference  instead  of  fact.) 

Aus. — I  knoAv  of  freight  having  gone  over  the  common 
road. 

Int.  8. — AVas  not  the  freight  which  you  know  to  have  passed 
over  the  Avagon  road  that  you  have  just  spoken  of,  freight 
brought  up  the  river  by  the  Peoples'  Line  of  steamers,  the  line 
not  connected  with  the  owners  of  the  Portage  railroad? 

Ans. — Freight  by  the  Peoples'  Line  of  steamers  was  ship- 
ped over  the  common  road. 

Ite-£xan>m  ation-in-  (Jliief. 

Int.  1. — Was  not  this  a  public  railroad,  chartered  by  the 
Legislature? 

Ans. — The  Company  built  the  road  under  a  charter  from  the 
Washington  Territory  Legislature,  with  provisions  similar  to 
usual  railroud  charters. 

Int.  2. — Do  you  mean  to  be  understood  as  stating,  in  an- 
swer to  the  two  last  previous  cross-interrogatories,  that  the 
officers  of  the  railroad  unlawfully,  and  in  violation  of  their 
charter,  excluded  freight  therefrom? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Int.  3. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  any  freight  having 
been  excluded  from  that  railroad  by  its  officers? 

Ans. — 1  have  not. 


251 

Int.  4. — State,  if  you  know,  for  what  reason,  on  the  occasion 
or  occasions  of  which  you  speak,  such  freight  not  being  ex- 
cluded from  the  railroad  was  transported  by  wagons. 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Lander  as  assuming  the  facts  that 
freiglit  was  excluded,  when  the  witness  merely  stated  that  he 
personally  did  not  know  of  any  exclusion.) 

(Mr.  Cushing  adheres  to  the  question,  because  its  object  is 
to  disprove  an  influence  which  the  cross-interrogatories  in- 
tended to  iiliply  contrary  to  the  fact.) 

Ans. — U:.3  of  the  owners  of  the  Peoples'  Line  informed  me 
they  shipped  their  freight  over  the  wagon  road  in  order  to  se- 
cure a  sufficient  sympathy  and  influence  to  obtain  a  charter 
for  another  road,  thus  demonstrating  one  road  was  insufficient 
to  do  the  business. 

Cross-Examinatio  n  Ilesum  ed. 

Int.  1. — Have  you  not  heard  other  reasons,  given  in  con- 
versations, for  the  course  adopted  by  the  Peoples'  Line? 

(Mr.  Cushing  objects  to  this  question  as  incompetent,  and- 
as  out  of  time.) 

Ans. — None  ofher  than  the  Oregon  Steam  Navigation  Com- 
pany, when  there   »vas  a  rush  of  business,  would  send  their 

own  freight  over  the  railroad  first. 

A.  J.  Cain. 
Washington,  D.  C,  December  19,  18G6. 


Claim  of  the  Hudson  s  Bay  Company  against  the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  George  W.  Slioemahcr,  taken  at  the  request  and 
in  behalf  of  the  United  States,  by  agreement  between 
Caleb  Cushing,  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  and  Ed- 
ward Lander,  on  behalf  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Testimony  of  George  W.  Shoemaker. 

Int.  1. — Please  to  state  your  name  at  length,  your  place  of 
abode,  and  your  official  capacity,  if  any. 
Ans. — George  W.  Shoemaker;  at  present  in  the  city  of 


Vi' 

I-: 

1     >"■- 

■'■III  i\-. 

>n\  'Hc: 

:i'''       t       •■ 

'  '  7     ^" 

■l^..       ■      ' 

;  i  ■ 

■ 

pl^' 


B;,i!i 


.  *■ 


m 


i  •'  'irM  , 


'.ifi,':ii! 


'^KW:i 


252 

Philadelphia ;  I  am  in  no  business  at  present ;  have  been  in 
the  Quartermaster's  Department,  and  .^ince  that,  been  farm- 
ing.    I  was  farming  in  Walla-Walla  Valley  several  years. 

Int.  2. — Please  to  state  during  what  years  you  were  in  the 
Walla-Walla  Valley. 

Ans. — I  went  there  in  1858,  and  left  there  in  18G4. 

Int.  3. — Whether  or  not  you  had  charge  at  anv  time  of  the 
sutler's  store  at  new  Walla-Walla,  and  h.ad  teams  running  to 
and  from  the  landing  at  old  Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — I  did  have  charge  of  the  sutler's  store,  and  had  teams 
running  as  in((uired  of. 

Int.  4. — State,  if  you  know,  at  what  time,  and  under  what 
circumstances,  the  landing-place  at  old  Walla-Walla  came  to 
be  called  Wallula. 

Ans. — I  think  it  was  in  1862  that  J.  M.  Van  Syckle  christ- 
ened it  Wallula.  He  was  the  government  transportation 
agent  stationed  at  old  Fort  Walla-Walla,  also  afterwards 
steamer  agent — express  agent. 

Int.  5. — When  Van  Syck'e  went  there,  were  the  buildings 
of  the  old  fort  occupied  by  anybody? 

Ans. — About  that  time  occupied  as  an  embarcadera  by  a 
few  persons  engaged  in  transporting  goods  up  the  Columbia 
river,  and  also  some  Indians  were  there  fishing  for  salmon. 

Int.  6. — State,  if  you  know,  whether  there  was  any  apparent 
occupation  of  the  buildings  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  or 
its  agents. 

Ans. — None,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge. 

Int.  7. — State,  if  you  know,  whether  Van  Syckle  settled 
there  in  local  business,  and  whether  the  same  proved  profitable 
or  not. 

Ans. — He  kept  a  store,  general  grocery,  of  supplies;  proved 
profitable  at  that  time,  under  the  gold  excitement.  Van 
Syckle's  exertions  caused  Wallula  to  be  an  important  place. 
After  the  gold  excitement  died  out,  business  declined,  until 
Umatilla  sprung  into  existence  some  twenty-odd  miles  below 
on  the  Columbia  river,  which  turned  the  trade  from  Wallula, 
and  Van  Syckle  became  a  ruined  man. 

Int.  8. — How  many  buildings  were  constructed  there  at  the 


been  in 

;n  farm- 

irs. 

c  in  the 

c  of  the 

ming  to 

253 

landing  during  the  period  of  its  prosperity  or  before,  and  what 
is  their  present  condition? 

Aiis. — Some  twenty-five  or  thirty;  of  Avhicli  the  principal 
building  was  constructed  by  Mr.  Van  Syckle  and  his  partner 
Tatem;  the  other  buildings  were  what  is  commonly  called  bal- 
loon frames,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  being  very  cheap 
structures,  the  cheapest  known  to  carpenters,  and  some  of 
them  part  or  wholly  of  canvas.  After  Mr.  Yiiu  Syckle  became 
embarrassed,  the  place  went  down;  nearly  all  the  buildings 
ceased  to  be  occupied,  or  to  have  any  value  as  buildings,  and 
a  number  of  them  were  torn  down  and  the  materials  sold  for 
'umber.  One  building  was  sold  to  the  Government  for  a  store- 
house. 

Int.  0. — Tlease  to  state  the  condition  and  apparent  value  of 
the  old  buildings  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  there. 

Aiis. — The  whole  place  Avas  in  a  dilapidated  condition  ;  the 
buildings  were  built  of  adobes.  At  the  time  I  saw  the  old 
buildings,  they  were  worth  from  $500  to  $1,000,  provided  any- 
body Avantcd  them. 

Ltt.  10. — State  what  means  of  personal  knowledge  you  have 
concerning  these  buildings,  and  whether  or  not,  by  profession 
or  experience,  you  are  a  judge  of  the  value  of  the  buildings. 

Ans. — My  l)usinoss  called  me  there  for  several  years.  Be- 
ing a  house  builder  and  carpenter  by  trade,  I  consider  myself 
a  judge  of  the  value  of  buildings. 

Jnf.  11. — Please  to  state  whether  those  buildings,  as  they 
stood  when  you  first  saw  them,  were  or  were  not  capable  of 
any  beneficial  use.  ^ 

Ans. — None  of  them  tenantable. 

Int.  12. — Whether  or  not  was  the  landing-place  enclosed 
in,  or  the  open  beach  or  bank  of  the  river? 

Ans. — No  enclosure;  open  beach  and  bank  of  the  river,  com- 
mon to  all. 

lid.  lo. — "What  trade  now  stops  at  "Wallula? 

Ans. — The  California  Steam  Navigation  Company  and  some 
sail  vessels  touch  there,  on  their  way  up  the  river ;  also,  a  stage 
line  runs  there,  in  connection  with  the  steamers,  and  teams 


Hi 


1 


m 


254 


"  :  '  r 

'  •■':     '         .'^,'' 

flip 


■I,       5,      .-JS 


:.:s'l:. 


•V  ,,; 


li'"' 


111' '' 


111 


! 


11' 


haul  up  tlio  valley.  Most  of  the  goods  of  the  trade  there  are 
for  the  Walla-WaHa  Valley. 

Ivt.  14. — In  addition  to  Umatilla,  below  Wallula,  is  there 
any  place  or  places  above,  which  have  affected,  by  competi- 
tion, the  business  at  Wallula? 

Ans. — The  town  of  Lewiston  has.  It  has  taken  all  the 
upper  trade  from  it. 

Int.  15. — Arc  all  the  supplies  for  the  valley  of  the  Walla- 
Walla,  through  the  whole  j'ear,  landed  at  Wallula,  or  are  they 
conveyed  partly  by  some  other  route? 

Ans. — They  are  conveyed  to  a  great  extent  by  another 
route.     That  route  is  overland  from  the  Dalles  city. 

Int.  10. — At  the  time  of  your  last  being  at  Wallula,  what 
persons  were  doing  local  business  there,  if  any,  and  what  kind 
of  business  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  their  names.  There  are  two 
houses  selling  goods  there — small  stocks,  small  retail  busi- 
ness— and  one  person  selling  bad  whiskey.  There  had  been 
a  hotel  there,  but  it  was  being  closed  up  for  want  of  business. 

Int.  17. — Have  you  personal  knowledge  of  the  quality  of 
the  land  at  and  around  old  Walla- Walla;  and,  if  so,  what  are 
your  means  of  knowledge,  either  by  observation  or  by  prac- 
tical experience?     And,  if  so,  state  the  same. 

Ans. — I  have  such  knowledge.  My  means  of  knowledge 
were  by  observation  and  practical  experience  in  farming  and 
teaming.  For  several  miles  around  old  Fort  Walla- Walla,  it 
is  nothing  but  sand,  rocks,  and  alkaline  bottom-lands,  and  of 
no  value  for  farming  or  grazing.  The  bottom-lands  are  sub- 
ject to  overflow,  which  prevents  the  cultivation  of  the  few 
acies  that  might  otherwise  be  cultivated. 

Int.  18. — Who  is  the  nearest  settler  to  old  Fort  Walla- 
Walla  ? 

Ans. — A  man  by  the  name  of  Pambrill,  about  two  and  a  half 
to  three  miles  up  the  Walla-Walla  river ;  and  he  does  not  live 
by  farming,  but  by  fish  or  game  and  teaming. 

Int.  19. — Please  to  state  what  you  know  regarding  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company's  farm. 

Ans. — It  is  about  18  or  20  miles  from  old  Fort  Walla- Walla, 


255 


up  the  river,  on  the  east  side.  I  do  not  know  tlic  extent  of  it; 
it  is  immediately  west  of  the  Whitman  farm  ;  it  is  called  the 
Protestant  Mission. 

Int.  20. — What  was  the  value  of  the  said  farm  wiien  you 
first  saw  it,  and  now? 

Ans. — Cannot  form  any  idea,  not  knowing  the  boumlaries. 

Int.  21. — Whether  or  not  the  farms  in  that  region  have  any 
value,  independently  of  actual  occupation  and  improvement'.'' 

Alls. — Very  little,  if  any. 

Int.  22. — State,  if  you  know,  what  has  been  the  chief  cause 
of  value  to  Wallula,  and  to  cultivation  in  the  valley  of  the 
Walla-Walla. 

Ans. — The  establishment  of  the  Government  post  in  Walla- 
Walla  Valley.  The  post  created  the  town  of  Walla- Walla, 
and  in  order  to  draw  settlers  there,  for  the  supply  of  the  post, 
it  became  necessary  for  the  officers  of  the  Government  to  en- 
courage settlers  to  come  there  by  the  supply  of  seeds  and  other 
proper  means,  including,  in  some  cases,  farming  implements 
and  teams,  which  obviated  the  necessity  of  bringing  grain 
from  Vancouver  at  great  expense  to  the  Government.  Tiie 
families  there  previously  were  half-breed  families,  or  Cana- 
dians, or  others,  and  those,  not  many  in  number,  sent  there 
for  trapping  in  former  years,  and  who  did  not  cultivate  the 
land,  except  in  little  garden  spots,  affording  no  surplus. 


Cross-Examination. 

Int.  1. — When  did  you  leave  Wallula? 

Ans. — In  November,  18G4,  and  have  not  been  there  since. 

Int.  2. — During  the  summer  of  18G4,  were  you  engaged  in 
the  sutler's  store  at  the  military  post  in  Walla-Walla  Valley? 

Ans. — I  was. 

Int.  3. — Was  that  your  business  all  the  time  you  remained 
in  the  valley  of  the  Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — No.  I  was  there  two  years  and  ten  months  in  that 
business;  then  farming  for  several  years,  in  person. 

Int.  4. — Where  were  you  farming? 

Ans. — On  the  west  line  of  the  Government  military  post. 


25G 


iHi 


,'   '*! 


i  :! 


f.'ii 


m 


Int.  ''). — AVcro  you  on  your  own  farm,  or  farming  for  others? 

An». — On  my  own  farm. 

Int.  (3. — Arc  you  still  the  owner  of  that  farm,  or  have  you 
sold  it  ? 

Ana. — I  lijive  sold  it. 

Inf.  7. — Wa-  it  land  you  had  entered  and  paid  for? 

Anx. — Y(',«. 

Inf.  8. — J  low  much  did  you  sell  your  land  for  ? 

AnK. — Twenty-six  hundred  dollars — with  the  improvements 
and  sonic  fuinifure  and  farming  implements. 

Inf.  !.'. — Is  it  your  opinion  that  you  obtained  a  fair  pi  ice 
for  your  farm? 

Ana. — 1  think  I  did,  for  the  time  I  sold  it. 

Inf.  10. — l>id  not  Van  Syckle  or  others  repair  and  occupy 
a  portion  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  old  fort,  "Walla- 
Walla? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  11. — At  what  time  did  the  gold  excitement  go  down? 

Ans. — The  Salmon  river  and  Oro-Fino  gold  excitement  died 
out  in  spring  of  1802  or  'G3. 

Inf.  12. — Were  there  not,  in  the  spring  and  summer  of  1863, 
a  large  numher  of  passengers  and  a  great  deal  of  freight 
lande<l  at  Wallula,  passing  to  the  Boise  mines? 

Ans. — There  was  very  little  of  the  passengers  of  that  ex- 
citement came  to  Wallula;  the  majority  went  to  Umatilla. 

Inf.  18. — ITow  many  times  were  you  at  Umatilla  in  the 
spring  and  smnmcr  of  18G3? 

Ans. — Oiilv  once. 

Inf.  14. — Are  you  able,  then,  from  your  personal  observa- 
tion at  Umatilla,  to  state  the  number  of  passengers  that  went 
there  in  1SG3? 

Ans. — I  know  it,  not  from  observation  alone,  but  from  other 
circumstances. 

Inf.  15. — "Were  you  farming  in  spring  and  summer  of  18G3? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  IG. — How  far  did  you  live  from  the  main  road  leading 
from  Wallula  to  the  Boise  mines,  and  how  far  from  the  road 
leading  from  Umatilla  to  the  Boise  mines  ? 


257 

An8. — I  was  half  a  mile  from  the  road  leading  from  Wal- 
lula  to  Walla-Walla.  I  was  six  miles  from  the  nearest  direct 
road  from  Wallula  to  the  Boise  mines.  The  next  road  from 
Umatilla  to  the  Bois6  mines  was  about  twenty  miles  from  me. 
My  farm  was  about  thirty  miles  from  Wallula. 

Int.  17. — Are  not  many  buildings  in  the  towns  on  the  Pa- 
cific coast,  in  Washington  Territory,  built  of  balloon  frames  ? 

Ans. — The  majority  are  built  in  that  way. 

Int.  18.— When  did  Van  Syckle  leave  Wallula? 

An8. — He  had  not  left  when  I  came  away. 

Int.  19. — How  many  houses  in  Wallula  did  you  see  torn 
down  in  the  fall  of  1864  ? 

Ans. — In  the  summer  of  1864,  I  saw  teams  hauling  lumber 
up  from  Wallula,  and  on  inquiry,  I  was  told  it  was  buildings 
torn  down  at  Wallula,  and  next  time  when  I  went  there  I  saw 
where  they  had  been  torn  down.  I  can't  say  how  many  build- 
ings were  torn  down,  from  the  fact  that  the  materials  were 
removed.     I  saw  the  space  where  the  buildings  had  been. 

Int.  20. — IIow  many  spaces  did  you  see,  from  which  build- 
ings had  had  been  removed,  at  the  time  you  speak  of? 

Ans. — I  don't  know. 

Int.  21. — Can  you  locate  any  particular  spot  in  the  town  of 
Wallula  from  which  the  building  had  been  removed  ? 

Ans. — Next  door  to  Samuel  Crider's,  or  a  few  lots  from  it. 

Int.  22. — What  sort  of  a  house  was  it  ? 

Ans. — It  was  a  wooden  building. 

Int.  23. — You  have  placed  a  value  on  the  buildings  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — Yes ;  when  I  first  saw  them. 

Int.  24. — At  what  time  do  you  wish  this  valuation  to  be 
dated? 

^W8.— 1859. 

Int.  25. — When  you  saw  these  buildings,  at  the  time  you 
placed  the  value  upon  them,  were  you  any  judge  whatever  of 
the  value  or  cost  of  adobe  buildings  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  I  have  seen  many  of  such  locations.  The 
value  of  a  building  depends  a  geat  deal  on  its  location. 

17  H 


t  n 


»•  <; 


■W  t':':i 


i.i,.:<  ;^jj 


ii''^'^ 


1 1  ill 


258 

Jilt.  26. — Do  not  the  steamers  of  the  Navigation  Company, 
for  most  of  the  year,  stop  at  Wallula? 

Aiifi. — Yes,  sir ;  but  a  part  of  the  year  they  run  up  as  far 
as  Lcwiston. 

Int.  27. — Is  not  Wallula,  during  the  summer  and  fall 
months,  the  head  of  navigation  on  the  Columbia  river  ? 

A)i.^. — It  is,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  summer;  more  par- 
ticularly in  the  fall. 

Int.  28. — At  the  time  you  left  the  valley  of  the  Walla- 
Walla,  had  the  new  stage  road  through  the  Blue  Mountains 
been  finished? 

Ans. — They  were  working  on  it  still,  though  the  stages 
were  running  on  it. 

Int.  21). — Were  you  at  the  town  of  Lewiston  in  the  year  of 
18G4,  or  any  other  time  ? 

Ans. — I  was,  in  the  fall  of  1863,  and  the  spring  of  1863. 

Int.  30. — At  the  time  you  were  at  Lewiston,  had  the  swerv- 
ing excitement  of  the  Oro-Fino  and  Salmon  river  mines  be- 
yond Lewiston  ceased  ? 

Ans. — No;  it  was  in  its  height. 

Int.  31. — Are  you  prepared,  from  your  own  knowledge  of 
the  trade  and  business  at  Lewiston,  since  the  gold  excitement 
ceased,  as  you  have  before  stated,  to  say  anything  in  refer- 
ence to  it  ? 

Ans. — Nothing,  of  my  own  knowledge. 

Int.  32. — What  was  the  population  of  the  Walla-Walla 
Valley  at  the  time  you  left  it  ? 

Ans. — The  vote  for  sheriiF  for  that  county  was  something 
less  than  500 ;  that  was  the  summer  I  left. 

Int.  33. — Did  you  leave  the  valley  of  the  Walla- Walla  the 
same  summer  which  Mr.  Cole  was  elected  to  Congress  ? 

Ans. — I  returned  to  New  York  December  15,  1864.  I  was 
just  thirty-six  days  from  Walla- Walla  city  to  New  Y'^ork  city. 

Int.  34. — What  is  the  distance  by  land  from  the  Dalles  to 
Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — 180  miles. 

Int.  35. — What  was  the  price  per  pound  for  freight  from 


259 


the   Dallos    to  Walla-Walla,  by  land  transportation,  in    the 
spring  and  summer  of  18(14  ? 

Alts. — From  four  to  six  cents  per  pound,  and  that  taken 
out  in  trade  sometimes. 

Jn(.  36. — Immediately  around  Fort  Walla-Walla,  in  the 
spring  of  the  year,  is  there  not  bunch  grass  found  amongst 
the  sage  brush  ? 

Ahs. — No,  sir. 

Int.  37. — Were  you  ever  at  Walla- Walla  in  the  spring  of 
the  year  ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  88. — Across  the  river  Walla-Walla,  from  the  old  fort 
on  the  bluffs,  within  three  miles  of  the  old  fort,  is  there  not 
bunch  grass  t©  be  found  at  all  seasons  of  the  year  ? 

Ans. — On  top  of  the  hills  there  is  bunch  grass  three  miles 
off.  There  is  pretty  good  grazing  on  those  hills  in  spots. 
Some  call  the  grass  sheep-grass. 

Int.  39. — Was  there  no  demand  for  the  productions  of  the 
Walla- Walla  Valley  in  the  year  1868,  and  the  part  of  1864 
that  you  resided  there,  except  that  afforded  by  the  military 
post  ? 

Ans. — None  for  grain,  with  the  exception  of  Umatilla  and 
Lewiston,  and  also  Auburn. 

Int.  40. — How  many  flouring  mills,  and  how  many  run  of 
stone  in  each  mill,  were  there  in  the  valley  of  .the  AValla- 
Walla,  in  1864? 

Ans. — There  were  two  running ;  thinks  he  saw  two  run  of 
stones,  Scms's  mill ;  another  mill  on  Dry  Creek. 

Int.  41. — How  many  soldiers  were  there  quartered  at  the 
military  post  in  the  summer  of  1864? 

Ans. — Some  four  to  six  companies ;  two  of  cavalry  ;  three 
of  the  companies  on  my  books. 

Int.  42 — Why  did  you  not  have  the  balance  of  the  compa- 
nies on  your  books  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  there  were  more  than  three  com- 
panies. I  understood  that  a  part  of  the  companies  go  out  on 
expeditions,  and  some  of  them  went  out  that  summer.     This 


2G0 


■i-i 


iii^^ 


was  a  I'cgular  thing  every  summer.     The  post  was  built  for  a 
scven-coinpany  post. 

Int.  4'i, — Do  you  feci  certain  tliat  there  were  any  compa- 
nies sent  out  to  meet  the  emigration  in  the  year  1SG4? 

Ans. — I  could,  not  swear  positively  on  this  point ;  I  know 
it  was  a  general  thing  to  go  out. 

Int.  44. — Was  there  not  a  great  mining  excitement  in  1803 
and  1S<J4  about  the  mines  of  Boise,  and  late  in  the  summer  of 
1864,  of  Owyhee? 

Ans. — There  was  no  extraordinary  excitement ;  there  was 
some  little  excitement — I  mean  Walla-Walla. 

Int.  45. — Do  you  know  anything  about  the  freight  and  pas- 
sengers passing  up  Columbia  river  so  as  to  be  able  to  say 
whether  there  were  more  passengers  and  freight,  or  not,  in 
1803  and  1804,  when  you  say  there  was  no  ordinary  excite- 
ment, than  in  1802,  when  you  say  there  was  an  excitement? 

Ans. — I  saw  that  at  Walla-Walla,  and  all  over  the  coun- 
try, in  1802,  there  was  a  general  excitement,  and  the  trade 
was  then  pretty  equally  divided  between  the  W^alla-Walla 
route  and  the  Lewiston  route,  until  the  latter  end  of  the  ex- 
citement, when  Lewiston  had  the  best  of  it.  There  were  a 
great  many  more  passengers  and  freight  in  1801  and  18C2 
than  in  1803  and  1804. 

G.  W.  Shoemaker. 

December  19,  1866. 


li<i'  . 


I'm 


!  r;;! 


Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  Ceorge  B.  Simpson,  taken  at  the  request  and  in 
behalf  of  the  United  States,  by  agreement  between  Caleb 
Gushing,  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  and  Edward 
Lander,  on  behalf  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Testimony  of  George  B.  Simpson. 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  residence,  and  occupation  ? 
Ans. — George  B.  Simpson ;  late  additional  paymaster  of 


261 


tlio  Unitoil  States  Army  ;  temporary  residence  iu  Washington 
city,  an<l  a  citizen  of  Oregon. 

l)d.  2. — Were  you  ever  at  Fort  Hall,  a  post  of  the  Hud- 
son's ]{ay  Company  in  what  was  Oregon  Territory  ?  If  so, 
T^hat  time  or  times? 

Ana.-'Yc^  ;  in  1852  or  1855. 

Int.  3. — What  was  the  condition  of  Fort  Hall  at  those 
times? 

Ans. — The  condition  of  the  fort  was  very  good  at  those 
times. 

Int.  4. — Did  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  at  that  time,  have 
any  trade  Avith  emigrants  or  with  Indians  at  that  post  ?  And 
if  so,  state  what  was  its  nature  ? 

Ans. — From  what  I  saw,  I  judged  they  had  a  limited  trade 
with  the  Indians;  this  was  in  1852;  but  I  did  not  learn  that 
they  had  any  trade  with  the  emigrants.  From  what  I  saw,  my 
impressions  were,  both  in  the  years  1852  and  1855,  that  they 
merely  held  the  post,  under  the  treaty  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain,  guaranteeing  them  certain  possess- 
ory rights. 

Int.  5. — In  1855,  did  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  have  any 
trade  with  the  Indians  in  furs  at  Fort  Hall  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  that  they  had.  From  what  I  saw,  I 
judged  that  they  still  retained  a  very  limited  trade. 

Int.  6. — Were  there  any  agents  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany at  Fort  Hall  in  1855 ;  and,  if  so,  how  many  ? 

Ans. — I  saw  one  only — Mr.  William  Sinclair. 

Int.  7. — Were  there  any  cattle  or  horses  owned  by  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  at  Fort  Hall  in  1855? 

Ans. — Neither  saw  or  knew  of  any  cattle ;  they  had  some 
horses,  but  only  a  few. 

Int.  8. — Were  you  ever  at  Fort  Boisfe,  another  post  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company;  and,  if  so,  when? 

Ans.— I  was  at  Fort  Boise  in  1852,  1853,  and  1855. 

Int.  9. — What  was  the  condition  and  value  of  the  buildings 
and  land  at  the  post  in  1853? 

Ans. — The  buildings  were  in  a  dilapidated  condition  ;  the 
land  was  nearly  a  desert,  with  the  exception  of  a  little  strip 


f'm 


u  im 


262 

along  the  river;  the  building  and  land  I  should  judge  to  have 
been  worth  $3,000. 

Int.  10. — What  was  the  value  of  these  same  buildings  and 
land  in  1855? 

A718. — Very  little  difference  in  i^^eir  value.  The  buildings 
may  have  depreciated  some. 

Int.  11. — Was  there  any  trade  in  fui^,  between  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  and  Indians  or  trappers  at  Fort  Boise,  at 
the  times  you  were  there;  and,  if  so,  how  much? 

Ans. — None,  to  my  knowledge. 

Int.  12.-  -What  would  you  estimate  to  have  been  the  value 
of  the  post  at  Fort  Hall,  including  buihHngs  and  lauds,  when 
you  were  tliore  in  1852? 

Ans. — From  my  knowledge  of  such  improvements  in  Utah, 
I  judge  them  to  have  been  worth  about  $5,000.  I  include  in 
this  estimate  the  land  and  buildings.  The  land  has  no  com- 
parative value. 


■■*■  V'. 


I|ii! 


i 


Cross-Uxammation. 

Int.  1. — What  length  of  time  were  you  at  Fort  Hall  in  1852 
and  1855  ? 

Ans. — In  1852,  I  was  there  most  of  one  day.  In  1855,  I 
was  the  guest  of  Mr.  Slncliiir  two  or  three  days.  In  1852,  I 
was  there  about  August  1;  in  1855,  in  August.. 

Int.  2. — Was  it  from  that  visit  in  1852  that  you  received 
the  impression  that  the  Compai.y  merely  held  the  post  under 
the  treaty  ? 

Ans. — It  was  partially  from  that  visit  and  partially  from 
the  further  fact  that  former  agents  of  the  Company  were 
trading  with  the  emigrants  on  their  own  account. 

Int.  3. — Have  you  any  personal  knowledge  of  former  agents 
of  the  Company  trading  with  the  emigrants  on  their  own  ac- 
count ? 

An,i. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  4. — State  whac  former  agents  of  the  Company  you  saw 
trading  with  the  emigrants,  and  at  what  time  and  places. 

Ans. — Mr.  McArthui*,  Mr.  Mayett,  and,  I  think,  Mr.  Grant; 


263 

but  I  am  not  positive  about  the  last.  I  know  that  Mr. 
McArthur  was  a  former  agent  of  the  Company,  but  I  do  not 
know  that  the  others  were.  Nearly  all  the  trading  with  the 
emigrants  was  done  by  persons  not  connected  with  the  Com- 
pany. 

Int.  5. — Do  you,  from  your  own  personal  knowledge,  know 
at  what  periods  of  the  year  furs  were  brought  into  Fort  Ilall 
to  trade  by  trappers  and  Indians? 

Ans. — I  do  not. 

hit.  6. — Is  your  personal  knowledge  of  the  trade  at  Fort 
Hall  confined  to  the  day  you  spent  tliert  in  1H;'2  and  the  two 
or  three  days  spent  there  in  1850  't 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Int.  7. — What  other  days  were  you  there  than  tho?>e  you 
have  mentioned? 

Ans: — No  other  time. 

Int.  8. — What  do  you  mean  by  personal  information,  other 
than  what  you  saw  in  1852  and  1855? 

Ans. — Information  derived  from  others;  one  of  whom,  Mr. 
Sinclair,  was  an  officer  of  the  Company — the  agent  at  Fort 
Hall  in  1853  and  1855. 

Int.  9. — Did  you  go  out  upon  the  range  at  either  time  that 
you  were  at  Fort  Hall  ? 

Alls. — I  did  not  go  out  upon  any  special  range;  I  passed  up 
the  river  bottom  from  the  emigrants'  trail  to  the  fort:  and,  in 
1855,  I  passed  up  the  bottoms,  between  one  and  two  uiiles,  to 
Mr.  McArthur's  trading,  p^st  then  crossed  the  river,  above 
the  fort. 

Int.  10. — In  making-  your  valuatioTi  of  the  land  and  l)uild- 
ings  at  Fort  Boise,  how  much  land  did  you  include  as  belong- 
ing to  tiio  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not  include  any  specific  amount  of  land,  as  it 
was  nearly  all  a  sage  plain,  and  of  no  comparative  value. 

Int.  11. — Have  you  not  seen  sage  plains  cultivated  by  means 
of  irrigation  ? 

Ann. — I  have  seen  them  so  cultivated. 

Int.  12. — What  length  of  time  were  you  at  Fort  Boi^e,  at 
your  different  visits,  and  at  what  seasons  of  the  year  ? 


■n]   [j 


i  i 


s    :il 


■'i  '[4 


264 

Ans. — I  was  at  Fort  Boise  about  one  clay  each  in  1852  and 
1853;  and  in  1855  I  was  there  three  or  four,  and  I  may  have 
been  five,  days. 

George  B.  Simpson, 
Late  Add'l  Paymaster  U.  S.  A. 
Washington  City,  D.  C,  December  21,  1806. 


'':i| 


t^l^li 


ii   J 


District  op  Columbia,     \ 
County  of  Washingon.  j 

I,  Nicliolas  Callan,  a  notary  public  in  and  for  the  county 
and  District  aforesaid,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing 
depositions,  hereunto  annexed,  of  Robert  J.  Atkinson,  George 
Clinton  Gardner,  Marcus  A.  Reno,  Lewis  S.  Thompson,  A.  J. 
Cain,  George  W.  Shoemaker,  and  George  B.  Simpson,  wit- 
nesses produced  by  and  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  in  the 
matter  of  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against 
the  same,  now  pending  before  the  British  and  American  Joint 
Commission  for  the  adjustment  of  the  same,  were  taken  before 
me  at  the  office  of  said  Commission,  No.  355  H  street  north, 
in  the  city  of  Washington,  District  of  Columbia,  and  reduced 
to  writing,  under  my  direction,  by  a  person  agreed  upon  by 
Caleb  Gushing,  Esq.,  attorney  for  the  United  States,  and 
Edward  Lander,  Esq.,  attorney  for  said  Company,  beginning 
on  the  6th  day  of  August,  1866,  and  ending  on  the  21st  day  of 
December,  1866,  (excepting  the  resumed  examination  of  George 
Clinton  Gardner,  which  was  commenced  on  the  28d  April  and 
concluded  on  the  30th  April,  1867,)  according  to  th  -^veral 
dates  appended  to  the  several  depositions,  when  they  were 
signed  respectively. 

I  furthe?^  certify  that  to  each  of  said  witnesses,  before  his 
examination,  I  administered  the  following  oath : 

"  You  swear  that  the  evidence  you  shall  give  in  the  matter 
of  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  United 
States  of  America  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  timth,  so  help  you  God." 

And  that,  after  the  same  was  reduced  to  writing,  the  depo- 


266 

sition  of  each  witness  was  carefully  read  and  then  signed  by 
ln'm. 

I  further  certify  that  Caleb  Gushing,  and  Edward  Lander, 
Esqs.,  were  personally  present  during  the  examination  and 
cross-exam  aation  of  all  of  said  witnesses,  and  the  reading 
and  signing  of  their  depositions. 

Witness  my  hand  and  notarial  seal  this  19th  uay  of  June, 

[L.  s.]    A.  D.  18G7. 

N.  Callan, 

'Notary  Public. 


„j..  ill 


f 


V*- 


wmm 


M 

nil  •    . 


Hi* 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION 


CN   THE 


HUDSON'S  BAY   AND   PUGET'S   SOUND   AGRICUL- 
TURAL  COMPANIES'    CLAIM. 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  vs. 

The  United  States. 


'i 


Ji'iii 


Deposition  of  Major  General  Philip  H.  Sheridan,  a  witness 
sworn  and  examined  in  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  in  the 
State  of  Louisiana,  by  virtue  of  the  commission  hereto 
annexed,  issued  by  the  Honorable  John  Rose  and  the 
Honorable  S.  Johnson,  commissioners,  to  me,  the  under- 
signed commissioner,  directed,  for  the  examination  of  the 
said  witness,  in  the  matter  of  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  against  the  United  States  of  America. 

Testimony  of  Philip  H.  Sheridan. 

Philip  H.  Sheridan,  Major  General  in  the  Army  of  the 
United  States,  now  on  duty  at  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  a 
witness  produced  on  the  part  and  behalf  of  the  United  States, 
being  first  by  me,  said  commissioner,  duly  and  solemnly  sworn, 
pursuant  to  the  directions  hereto  also  annexed,  in  answer  to 
the  interrogations  and  cross-interrogations  propounded  to  him 
in  the  matter  aforesaid,  deposeth  and  says  as  folioAvs,  to  Avit  : 

Ans.  1. — To  the  first  interrogatory  he  saith:  Major  General 
Philip  H.  Sheridan,  United  States  Army;  city  of  New  Orleans, 
State  of  Louisiana. 

Ans.  2. — To  the  second  interrogatory  he  saith:  I  w-^s  in 
Washington  Territory  from  about  the  1st  of  Octobci-,  I800, 
until  some  time  in  May,  185G.  During  this  period  I  was  on 
the  expedition  against  the  Lakina  Indians,  and  stationed,  for 


267 


short  intcrv<als,  at  the  Dalles  of  the  Coluiul/ia,  Fort  Van- 
couver, and  the  Cascade  of  the  Columbia. 

Ans.  S. — To  the  third  interrogatory  he  sitith:  I  am  ac- 
quainted with  the  military  post  of  Vancouver.  As  to  whether 
the  ground  covered  by  the  garrison  was  previously  occupied 
by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  or  not,  I  cannot  say.  I  have 
heard  it  said  that  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  claimed  the 
ground  upon  which  it  was  built.  Outside  of  the  garrison 
f(?nce,  I  think  immediately  south  of  the  garrison,  was  what 
was  called  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  establishment,  which 
was  surrounded  by  a  square  or  rectangular  picket,  with  block- 
houses inside  at  diagonal  corners.  The  establishment  com- 
prised some  six  or  seven  very  largo,  gloomy-looking  frame 
structures  of  wood,  rudely  built,  and,  from  their  appearance, 
very  old.  There  was  also  a  house  occupied  by  the  store, 
nearly  as  rude  as  the  others,  but  a  little  more  cheerful,  with  a 
ceiled  floor,  making  .an  up-stairs  store-room  or  extensive  gar- 
ret. There  was  no  covering  above  the  up-stairs  room  but  the 
roof,  if  I  recollect  right.  Then  there  was  the  chief  factor's 
house,  very  old,  but  a  little  more  modern  in  appearance,  with 
a  portico  covered  Avith  grape  vines.  There  were,  in  addition, 
several  smaller  houses,  in  which  the  servants  of  the  Company 
lived,  very  ordinary  in  construction.  These  servants  were 
composed  of  half-breed  Indians,  Ranches,  or  mixed  races;  or, 
if  the  heads  of  the  families  were  white,  their  families  were 
half-breeds,  quadroons,  or  octoroons.  These  houses  were  all 
insignificant  in  appearance  and  construction.  Outside  of  this 
picketed  establishment  there  were  several  small  houses  of  very 
insignificant  value,  occupied  by  the  same  character  of  people. 
These  houses  were  so  frail  and  so  contemptible  that  I  have 
known  some  of  the  vicious  teamsters  of  our  Quartermaster's 
Department,  in  driving  their  teams,  strike  the  corners  of  some 
of  these  houses  with  the  hubs  of  their  wagon  wheels,  and  ren- 
der them  uninhabitable  by  the  collision.  The  large,  gloomy 
store-houses  inside  the  picket  enclosure  were,  I  think,  very 
old;  they  had  the  look  of  primitive  construction,  and  had  the 
decay  of  old  aiie. 

Ans.  4. — To  the  fourth  interrogatory  he  saith:  I  eannot 


*•    I'l 


:.'  I 


m,)* 


268 

answer  this  question  directly,  but  can  give  my  feelings  in 
reference  to  these  buildings  and  improvements  at  the  time. 
They  were  situate,  I  think,  three-fourths  of  a  mile  from  the 
river,  and  were  of  no  value  as  store-houses,  because  incon- 
venient from  the  location.  Doubtless  they  were  important  for 
the  storage  of  furs ;  but  the  settlement  of  the  country,  and 
the  progress  attending  it,  would  cause  people  to  choose  other 
places  for  storage,  which  gave  them  the  advantages  of  modern 
improvements  and  less  porterage.  I  can  recollect  very  well 
that  my  impressions  at  the  time  were  that  it  would  be  a  good 
thing  if  they  would  burn  down.  In  this,  of  course,  I  was 
onl}'^  estimating  xheir  actual  value.  Since  then  I  have  had 
some  experience  of  the  value  realized  for  buildings  put  up  for 
special  purposes,  and,  by  the  progress  of  events,  becoming 
inconvenient  and  unnecessary.  Structures,  for  instance,  like 
the  cavalry  stables  erected  in  this  instance,  were  necessary  and 
valuable  when  put  up,  costing  about  ($290,000)  two  hundred 
and  ninety  thousand  dol  ars;  and  when  found  unnecessary, 
these  stables  were  sold  at  five  thousand  dollars  or  six  thousand 
dollars,  and  the  boards  and  framework  of  these  stables  were 
new.  the  structure  new,  the  timbers  new,  and  the  demand 
created  by  the  contiguity  of  a  large  city  of  two  hundred 
thousand  inhabitants.  So  we  may  say  that  the  storehouses 
of  the  Company  were,  by  the  almost  entire  cessation  of  the 
fur  trade  and  the  progress  of  settlement,  rendered  useless  and 
unnecessary,  and  their  actual  worth  could  have  been  but  little, 
as  tliere  was  no  market  for  the  materials,  even  if  they  were 
sound.  I  might  also  say  the  same  of  the  Sedgwick  Hospital, 
erected  in  the  vicinity  of  this  city.  It  cost  over  seven  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars,  ($700,000,)  and  is  perhaps  the  finest 
military  hospital  in  the  United  Sta-tes,  It  was  erected  for  a 
special  purpose,  and  fulfilled  its  object;  but  if  sold  now,  the 
material  would  not  bring  twenty  thousand  dollars,  ($20,000.) 

Ans.  "). — To  the  fifth  interrogfitory  he  saith :  I  liave  not. 

Ans.  1. —  And  to  the  first  cross-  interrogatory  he  saith  •  There 
were  hostilities  existing  with  tiie  Lackiiw,  Indians  and  some 
of  the  Indians  on  Puget's  Sound. 

Ans.  2. — To  the  second  crass-interrogatory  ho  saith  :  I  di ' 
not. 


269 


Ans.  3. — To  the  third  cross-interrogatory  he  saith  :  My  im- 
pression of  the  buildings  came  from  visiting  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company's  officers,  and  from  a  variety  of  other  circumstances 
connected  with  my  official  duties  while  residing  there. 

Ans.  4. — To  the  fourth  cross-interrogatory  he  saith :  I 
cannot  give  the  number  of  buildings  inside  of  the  fort  or 
stockade. 

Ans.  5. — To  the  fifth  cross-interrogatory  he  saith :  I  cannot 
say;  I  think  there  Avere  one  or  two  large  store-houses  down 
near  the  bank  of  the  Columbia  River.  These  two  store-houses 
were  the  only  buildings  I  considered  of  any  particular  value, 
and  that  was  on  account  of  their  location.  They  were  both 
very  old  and  out  of  repair.  One  of  them  was  occupied  by 
Capt.  McFeeley,  as  a  commissary  store-house  for  a  short 
time. 

Ans.  0. — To  the  sixth  cross-interrogatory  he  saith  :  I  have 
placed  no  value  on  the  buildings.  I  have  some  experience  in 
buildings,  but  cau  give  you  no  idea  of  the  amount  of  lumber 
in  any  of  them. 

uhus.  7. — To  the  seventh  cross-interrogatory  he  saith  :  For 
the  value  I  have  placed  upon  them,  I  refer  you  to  my  answer, 
hereinbefore  made,  to  the  fourth  direct  interrogatory. 

Ans.  8. — To  the  eighth  cross-interrogatory  he  saith  :  I  do 
not  exactly  recollect  the  price  of  lumber  at  Vancouver  at  that 
time ;  but  subsequently,  in  the  Willamette  Valley,  at  Oregon 
city,  and  other  points  higher  up  the  valley,  I  purchased  lumber 
at  fair  prices. 

Ans.  9. — To  the  ninth  cross-interrogatory  he  saith  :  Of  the 
number  I  have  no  knowledge. 

Ans.  10. — To  the  tenth  cross-interrogatory  he  saith  :  I  can- 
not tell  precise  dates.  I  visited  Vancouver  several  times  be- 
tween October,  1855,  and  September,  18^1.  I  was  then  sta- 
tioned ill  Or<^gon, 

An».  11. — To  the  eleventh  cross-interrogatory  he  saith:  I 
did  not  pay  any  particular  attention  to  the  lands  of  the  Com- 
pany, for  the  opposite  reason  which  I  have  given  for  putting  a 
,ery  light  value  on  the  structures  of  the  Company— we  might 
consider  the  lands  occupied  by  them  as  increasing  in  value. 


270 


Ans.  12. — To  the  twelfth  cross-intorrogatnrj  he  saith:  I  wag 
a  sccoihI  Lieutenant,  Fourth  Infantry,  United  States  Army. 

P.  II.  Sheridan, 
Major  General  U.  S.  A. 


Exaniinatioii  taken,  reduced  to  writing,  and  by  the  said 
witness  suhscribcd  and  sworn  to,  this  the  thirtieth  day  of  the 
month  of  November,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  sixty-six. 

In  faith  whereof  I  have  hereunto  subscribed  my  name  and 
affixed  my  seal  as  Commissioner  aforesaid,  at  my  office  in  the 
said  city  of  Nuw  Orleans,  the  day  and  year  above  written. 

Jas.  Graham, 

Commissioner. 


>     f 


V*' 


I  ''1 


III.;! 
ii 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson  s  Bay  Company  afjainst 
the  United  States  of  America. 

To  James  Graliam,  Commissioner,  New  Orleans,  Andrew  Hero, 
Jr.,  Notary  Public,  New  Orleans,  or  any  other  person 
duly  authorized  to  take  depositions  in  the  State  of  Louis- 
iana : 

Know  ye,  that  in  confidence  of  your  prudence  and  fidelity, 
you  have  been  appointed,  and  by  these  presents  you,  or  any  one 
of  you,  is  invested  Avith  full  power  and  authority  to  examine 
Major  General  Piiilip  H.  Sheridan,  on  his  corporal  oath,  as  a 
witness  in  the  above-entitled  cause,  upon  the  interrogations 
annexed  to  this  Commission  on  the  part  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  cross-interrogatories  thereto  annexed  by  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company. 

Therefore,  you  are  hereby  required,  that  you,  or  either 
of  you,  at  certain  days  and  places,  to  be  appointed  by  you  for 
that  purpose,  do  require  the  said  Major  General  Philip  H. 
Sheridan  to  come  before  you,  and  then  and  there  examine  him 
on  oath  on  said  interrogatories,  and  reduce  the  same  to  writ- 


271 

ing,  in  conformity  with  instructions  hereto  annexed.  And 
when  the  said  deposition  shall  have  been  completed,  you  will 
return  the  same,  annexed  to  this  writ,  closed  up  under  your 
seal,  and  addressed,  by  mail,  to  George  Gibbs,  Esq.,  Clerk  of 
said  Commission,  at  the  office  thereof,  in  the  city  of  Wash- 


ington. 


Witness: 


Alexander  S.  Johnsox, 

Comnmsioner. 
John  Rose, 

Com.  for  Great  Britain. 


INSTRUCTIONS. 

BRITI.^II  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION  ON  HUDSON'S  BAY 
AND  rUGET'S  SOUND  AGRICULTURAL  COMDANIES"  CLAIMS. 

In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against 
the  United  States  of  America. 

Instructions  for  the  Execution  of  the  Commission. 

The  deposition  may  be  preceded  by  the  following  heading: 

"Deposition  of ,  a  witness  sworn  and  examined 

in  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  in  the  State  of  Louisiana,  by 
virtue  of  this  Commission,  issued  by  the  Honorable  John 
Rose  and  the  Honorable  Alexander  S.  Johnson,  Commission- 
ers, to  me  directed,  for  the  examination  of  a  witness  in  the 
matter  of  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against 
the  United  States  of  America." 

The  Commissioner  then  calls  the  witness  before  him,  and 
administers  to  him  the  following  oath,  namely : 

"You  swear  that  the  evidence  you  shall  give  in  the  matter 
of  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  United 
States  of  America  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God." 

The  witness  having  been  thus  sworn,  the  evidence  given  by 
him  will  be  reduced  to  writing,  thus : 

''''Philip  H,  Sheridan^  Major  General  in  the  Army  of  the 


i    \\ 


m 


*  •    f!| 


1 
pi 

lili 

4i 


mn 


•I:  ^'  ■'w-affl 


^■:  M 


272 

United  States,  now  on  duty  at  the  city  of  New  Oidcans,  a  wit- 
ness produced  on  the  part  and  behalf  of  the  United  States, 
in  answer  to  tlic  following  interrogatories  and  cross-interrog- 
atories, deposeth  and  says  as  follows  :" 

When  the  deposition  of  the  witness  is  concluded,  he  must 
suh.scribe  his  name  thereto. 

The  deposition,  with  all  documents  and  papers,  if  any, 
accompanying  the  same,  will  be  returned  before  the  Commis- 
sioners with  all  convenient  diligence. 

Attest :  George  Gibbs, 

Clei'k. 


:^dii 


In  the  matter  of  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  now 
pcndiny  before  the  British  and  American  Joint  Commission 
on  the  Claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puyefs  Sound 
Agricultural  Companies  against  the  United  States. 

Interrogatories  to  be  addressed,  on  behalf  of  the  United  States, 
to  Major  General  Philip  H.  Sheridan,  now  stationed  at 
New  Orleans,  in  the  State  of  Louisiana. 

Ques.  1. — What  is  your  name,  place  of  residence,  and  pres- 
ent occupation? 

Ques.  2. — Have  you  ever  resided  in  Washington  Territory; 
if  yea,  where  and  when,  and  for  how  long  a  period? 

Ques.  3. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  post  in  Washington 
Territory,  called  Vancouver,  that  was  formerly  occupied  by 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company?  If  yea,  will  you  please  to  de- 
scribe the  same,  as  it  was,  when  it  came  under  your  personal 
observation,  giving,  as  fully  as  you  can,  the  number  and  char- 
acter of  the  buildings  and  improvements  which  were  in  the 
possession  of  the  Company,  and  the  extent  of  land  which  was 
occupied  by  them,  and  the  nature  of  their  occupation. 

Ques.  4. — What,  in  your  judgment,  was  the  value  of  the 
buildings  and  improvements  at  that  post,  which  were  claimed 
and  occupied  by  the  Company,  at  the  time  that  you  had  an 
opportunity  to  observe  them  ? 

Ques.  5. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  any  other  matter 
which  may  affect  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 


r 


278 

against  the  Unitoil  States?  If  yea,  please  to  state  the  same 
as  fully  as  if  you  were  specially  interrogated  in  relation 
thereto, 

C.  Cusiiixa, 
Counsel  for  the  United  States. 


In  the  matter  of  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Companif  now 
jjendint/  before  the  Britinh  and  American  Joint  Commission 
on  the  Claims  of  the  Hudson's  Baij  and  PujieCs  Sound 
Aijrieultural  Companies  against  th'.  United  States. 

€ross-intcrrogatories  to  be  addressed,  on  behalf  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company,  to  Major  General  Philip  II.  Sheri- 
daji,  now  stationed  at  New  Orleans,  in  the  State  of  Lou- 
isiana. 

Ques.  1. — During  the  time  you  were  stationed  at  Fort  Van- 
couver, was  there  not  an  Indian  war  going  on  in  Washington 
Territory? 

Ques.  2. — Did  you  at  any  time  give  a  particular  examina- 
tion to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  fort  at  Vancouver,  with 
a  view  to  ascertain  the  number  and  condition  of  the  buildings, 
so  far  as  regarded  decay  and  repair  or  necessity  for  it? 

Ques.  3. — Is  not  any  knowledge  you  may  have  of  those 
buildings  and  their  condition  derived  from  your  casual  obser- 
vations made  while  going  in  or  out  of  the  fort  for  business,  or 
on  visits  to  the  officers  of  the  Company? 

Ques.  4. — Can  you  give  the  number  of  buildings  inside  the 
fort  in  1856,  stating  how  many  of  them  were  store-houses, 
how  many  were  dwelling-houses,  how  many  small  shops,  what 
the  size  of  the  largest  dwelling-house  was,  what  that  of  the 
smallest?  If  so,  please  give  the  answer  in  the  order  in  which 
the  questions  are  put. 

Ques.  6. — How  many  buildings  were  there  outside  the  fort 
or  stockade? 

Ques.  G. — If  you  have  placed  any  value  on  those  buildings, 
you  will  please  state  whether  you  have  any  experience  in 
18  H 


'?' 


1' 


11 


4\ 


■  ■ 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


/>.*^!^ 


K^ 


ur  ^^ 


^ 


1.0 


1.1 


£  ta  IIP 

u 


M 


v-^mm 

< 

6"    

» 

Photographic 

Sdmces 

Corporation 


3>^ 


<^ 


^. 


23  WK/  MAIN  STMIT 
Wn»TCII,N.Y.  14Str 


v\ 


'^<i^ 


if" 


4^ 


%. 


2T4 

building,  or  can  estimate  by  mere  observation  tbc.amount  of 
lumber  in  any  given  building.  If  your  answer  is  yea  to  this 
question,  then  state  how  much  lumber  there  was  in  the  house 
of  the  chief  factor,  and  what  its  value  was  in  material  alone. 

Qucs.  1. — Has  not  any  value  you  have  placed  on  those 
buildings  been  a  value  based  upon  their  use  to  the  United 
States,  w^hose  they  then  were,  and  not  an  estimate  having 
reference  to  their  value  to  the  Company  or  any  person  other 
than  the  Cuited  States  ? 

Ques.  8. — Were  you  acquainted  with  the  cost  of  lumber  or 
the  price  of  labor  at  Vancouver  at  the  time  at  which  you  have 
valued  those  buildings,  if  at  all? 

Qites.  0. — How  many  buildings  of  the  Company  outside  of 
the  stockade  were  removed  or  burnt  down  while  you  were  at 
Vancouver? 

Ques.  10. — Please  to  state  for  how  much  of  the  time  you 
spent  in  Oregon  and  AVashington  you  were  stationed  at  Van- 
couver, giving,  if  you  can  recollect  them,  the  dates  of  your 
arrival  at  and  departure  from  there? 

Ques.  11. — Please  to  state  whether,  during  the  time  you  were 
stationed  al  Vancouver,  you  paid  any  particular  attention  to 
the  lands  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  their  enclosures,  fields, 
and  orchards,  with  any  view  to  a  definite  and  certain  knowl- 
edge of  them,  or  whether  your  observations  were  those  of  a 
casual  nature,  feeling  no  particular  interest  in  the  subject,  and 
your  knowledge  thus  acquired  slight,  and  neither  accurate  or 
positive. 

Ques.  12. — What  was  your  rank  in  the  Army  of  the  United 
States  while  you  were  in  Washington  Territory  ? 

Chas.  D.  Day, 
Counsel  for  the  Hudson  s  Bay  Company, 


Deposition  of  Rear  Admiral  Charles  Wilkea,  U.  S.  N.,  sworn 
and  examined  in  the  city  of  Charlotte,  county  of  Meck- 
lenburg, State  of  North  Carolina,  in  behalf  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  by  virtue  of  an  agreement  between 


275 

Charles  C.  Beaman,  Jr.,  Esq.,  agent  and  attorney  for 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  Edward  Lauder,  agent 
and  attorney  for  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  before  me, 
Charles  Overman,  a  justice  of  the  peace  in  and  for  the 
city  of  Charlotte,  county  of  Mecklenburg,  State  of  North 
Carolina. 

Testimony  of  Rear  Admiral  Charles  Wilkes. 

Int.  1. — Are  you  the  same  Rear  Admiral  Charles  Wilkes 
who  testified  in  the  case  of  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany against  the  United  States  ? 

Alls. — I  am. 

Int.  2. — When  on  your  exploring  expedition  in  the  year 
1841,  state  whether  or  no  you  visited  and  made  a  map  of  the 
Columbia  river  and  the  adjacent  country. 

Ans. — I  did. 

Int.  3. — Whether  or  no  you  made  a  report  of  what  you  and 
your  officers  saw  and  learned  at  that  time.  If  so,  state  by 
whom  it  was  written,  and  by  what  authority  it  was  published. 

Ans. — I  did  make  a  report,  written  by  myself,  from  my 
own  notes  and  observations ;  and  it  comprises  reports,  and 
official  reports  of  officers  and  scientific  gentlemen  attached  to 
the  expedition,  completed  and  published  by  the  authority  of 
Congress. 

Int.  4. — Whether  or  no  you  visited  at  that  time  Astoria,  a 
station  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company?  If  so,  state  its  situa- 
tion and  what  you  saw. 

Ans. — I  did  visit  it.  It  is  situated  (11)  eleven  miles  from 
the  bar,  on  the  left  bank  of  the  river,  on  elevated  ground 
rising  from  the  river.  It  covers  the  space  of  about  twenty 
(20)  acres,  or  thirty,  (30,)  on  which  buildings  could  be  erected. 
There  was  one  dwelling-house,  of  moderate  dimensions,  one 

(1)  story,  and  several  out-buildings.     A  garden  of  about  two 

(2)  acres  of  ground,  all  in  a  dilapidated  condition.  About 
two  (2)  acres  were  enclosed.  The  two  acres  cultivated  were 
enclosed. 

Int.  5. — How  many  officers  and  men  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  were  stationed  there  ? 


276 


Ans. — Mr.  Birnie  was  the  officer,  and  half  dozen  servants. 

Int.  6. — Whether  or  no,  in  your  report,  you  made  this  state- 
ment in  regard  to  the  post  at  Astoria:  "The  Company  paid 
little  regard  to  it,  and  the  idea  of  holding  or  improving  it  as 
a  post  has  long  since  been  given  up;"  and  whether  or  no  you 
made  this  statement  of  your  own  knowledge,  and  now  remem- 
ber the  same  to  be  true. 

Ans. — I  made  that  statement  from  my  own  knowledge,  in 
part,  and  from  information  derived  from  the  officers  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company;  and  I  now  remember  and  believe  the 
same  to  be  accurate  and  true. 

,  (Question  and  answer  objected  to,  the  introduction  of  all 
statements  taken  from  the  report  of  the  witness  objected  to, 
and  all  information  received  from  others,  and  all  testimony 
except  that  which  he  gives  from  his  own  personal  knowledge, 
as  incompetent  and  irrelevant.) 

Int.  7. — Were  you  at  the  station  of  Astoria  more  than  once? 
If  so,  state  how  often,  and  about  how  long  you  have  remained 
there. 

Ans. — I  was  there  twice :  first  time  about  (4)  four  days ; 
second  time  some  weeks  there  and  in  the  vicinity. 

Int.  8. — What  do  you  consider  the  cost  of  the  buildings  at 
Astoria  to  have  been ;  and  what  the  value  of  the  (2)  two  acres 
of  ground  enclosed  at  the  time  you  were  there? 

Ans. — I  suppose  the  cost  of  the  buildings  was  five  or  six 
hundred  dollars,  and  the  value  of  the  land  probably  twenty 
(20)  or  twenty-five  (25)  dollars  per  acre. 

Int.  9. — Whether  during  the  year  1841  you  visited  and  sur- 
veyed Cape  Disappointment.  If  so,  state  whether,  at  that 
time,  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  any  post  or  buildings 
there. 

Ans. — I  visited  it  in  1841,  and  was  very  often  employed  on 
the  cape  and  in  its  immediate  vicinity,  between  it  and  Astoria. 
There  was  no  habitation,  nor  an  individual  except  myself  and 
party,  on  the  cape  or  its  adjacent  land  during  the  whole  period. 

Int.  10. — What  use  did  you  make  of  the  capo? 

Ans. — I  used  it  as  a  point  of  triangulation  in  my  survey  of 
the  mouth  of  the  river. 


2T7 


two  acres 


Int.  11. — What  is  the  character  of  a  mile  square  of  land 
about  the  point  and  including  the  point  ? 

Ans. — Abrupt,  rocky,  and  uncultivated,  and  not  susceptible 
of  cultivation. 

Int.  12. — What  is  the  character  of  the  harbor  on  the  inside 
of  the  cape  ? 

Ans. — It  is  a  temporary  roadstead. 

Int.  13. — What  is  the  value  for  public  purposes  of  as  much 
land  as  would  be  used  and  necessary  for  a  suitable  light-house 
and  fort  on  this  point? 

Ans. — I  should  think  five  hundred  ($500)  to  be  a  high  price. 

Int.  14. — Whether  or  no  you  are  acquainted  with  a  place 
known  as  Pillar  Rock,  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Columbia ;  if 
so,  describe  it. 

Ans. — I  am  acquainted  with  the  rock.  It  stands  about  two 
hundred  (200)  yards,  I  should  think,  from  the  shore.  The 
shore  is  perpendicular. 

Int.  15. — Had  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  1841  any  sta- 
tion or  post  at  or  near  Pillar  Kock? 

Ans. — None  whatever. 

Int.  16. — Whether  or  no  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  had 
made  at  any  time,  before  or  during  your  visit,  any  claim  to 
any  land  at  Pillar  Rock. 

Ans. — None  to  my  knowledge,  nor  did  I  hear  of  any. 

Int.  17. — Whether  or  no  there  was  any  station  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Cowlitz  river 
where  it  enters  into  the  Columbia,  in  1841. 

Ans. — There  was  none,  and  I  should  not  Lave  expected  to 
find  one,  from  the  situation  and  character  of  the  soil. 

Int.  18. — What  is  the  situation  and  character  of  the  land 
described  in  the  last  question? 

Ans. — Low;  subject  to  be  overflowed  by  both  the  Cowlitz 
and  Columbia  rivers. 

Int.  19. — Whether  you  visited  a  place  on  the  Willamette 
river  known  as  Champoeg;  if  so,  state  what  was  its  situa- 
tion. 

Ans. — I  did.  It  was  a  low  sandy  point  projecting  from  the 
right  bank  into  the  river.    It  was  one  of  the  landings  at  which 


!. 


I 


,k' 


278 

I  stopped.  It  was  low  prairie,  subject,  as  I  was  informed  by 
Mr.  Johnson,  who  lived  near,  to  inundation. 

(The  statement  on  information  of  Mr.  Johnson  objected  to 
as  incompetent.) 

Int.  20. — AVhethcr  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  any  sta- 
tion at  Champoeg  in  1841. 

Ans. — None. 

Int.  21. — Whether  or  no  you  visited  in  1841  a  post  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  on  the  Columbia  river  known  as  Van- 
couver? 

Ans. — I  did. 

Int.  22. — Were  you  there  more  than  once?  If  so,  about  how 
long  were  you  there  in  all? 

Ans. — I  was  there  twice;  the  first  time  eight  (8)  or  ten  (10) 
days,  second  time  three  or  four  weeks,  I  think. 

Int.  23. — By  whom  were  you  entertained  ? 

Ans. — By  Dr.  McLoughlin  the  first  time,  and  the  second 
time  by  Dr.  McLoughlin  and  Sir  George  Simpson. 

Int.  24. — Whether  or  no  that  part  of  your  report  which  de- 
scribes the  station  at  Vancouver  was  made  from  your  own 
notes,  and  from  what  you  yourself  saw  and  heard. 

(Objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Ans. — It  was. 

(The  answer  objected  to  also.) 

Int.  25. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your  re- 
port: "We  came  in  at  the  back  of  the  village,  which  consists 
of  about  fifty  (50)  comfortable  log  houses.  The  fort  stands 
at  some  distance  beyond  the  village,  and  to  the  eye  ap- 
pears like  an  upright  wall  of  pickets  twenty-five  (25)  feet 
high.  This  encloses  the  houses,  shops,  and  magazines  of 
the  Company.  The  enclosure  contains  about  four  (4)  acres, 
which  appear  to  be  under  full  cultivation.  Beyond  the  fort 
large  granaries  are  to  be  seen.  At  one  end  is  Dr.  McLough- 
lin's  house,  built  after  the  model  of  the  French  Canadian, 
of  one  story,  weather-boarded,  and  painted  white.  It  has 
a  piazza  and  small  flower  beds,  with  grape  and  other  vines 
in  front.  Near  by  are  the  rooms  for  the  clerks  and  visitors, 
with  the  blacksmith's  and  cooper's  shops.    In  the  centre  stands 


279 

tlie  £<oinan  Catholic  chapel,  and  near  by  the  flag-staff.  Beyond 
these  again  are  the  stores,  magazines  of  powder,  warerooms, 
and  offices?" 

A718. — I  did. 

Int.  26. — Whether  or  no  you,  from  your  own  knowledge, 
used  the  language  just  quoted,  and  now  remember  it,  and  de- 
clare the  same  to  be  true. 

Ans. — Yea ;  I  made  it  from  my  own  knowledge,  and  as  a 
general  description.     I  remember  it,  and  it  is  true. 

Int.  27. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your  re- 
port :  "  Everything  may  be  had  within  the  fort.  They  have 
an  extensive  apothecary's  shop,  a  bakery,  blacksmith's  and 
cooper's  shop,  trade  offices  for  buying,  others  for  selling,  others 
again  for  keeping  accounts  and  transacting  buisiness?" 

Ana. — I  did,  sir. 

Int.  28. — Whether  or  no  you,  from  your  own  knowledge, 
used  the  language  just  quoted,  and  now  remember  it,  and  de- 
clare the  same  to  be  true. 

Ans. — It  is,  of  my  own  knowledge.  I  perfectly  remember 
it.     It  is  true. 

Int.  29. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your  re- 
port :  "  Vancouver  is  the  headquarters  of  the  Northwest  or 
Columbia  department,  which  also  includes  New  Caledonia. 
All  the  returns  of  furs  are  received  here,  and  hither  all  ac- 
counts are  transmitted  for  settlement?" 

Ans. — I  did. 

Int.  30. — Whether  or  no  you,  from  your  own  knowledge, 
used  the  language  just  quoted,  and  now  remember  it,  and  de- 
clare the  same  to  be  true. 

Ans. — The  knowledge  is  derived  from  the  officers  of  the 
Company,  Sir  George  Simpson,  Dr.  McLoughlin,  Mr.  Ogden, 
and  Mr.  Douglas.     I  remember  it,  and  believe  it  to  be  true. 

Int.  31. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your 
report :  "  The  interiors  of  the  houses  in  the  fort  are  unpretend- 
ing ;  they  are  simply  finished  with  pine-board  panels,  without 
any  paint ;  bunks  are  built  for  bedsteads ;  but  the  whole, 
though  plain,  is  as  comfortable  as  could  be  desired.  Besides 
the  storehouses,  there  is  also  a  granary,  which  is  a  frame 


M 


.! 


»r 


'■! 


Urn 


280 

building  of  ti^o  (2)  stories,  and  the  only  one,  the  rest  being 
built  of  logs?" 

An8. — I  did. 

Int.  32. — Whether  or  no,  you,  from  your  own  knowledge, 
used  the  language  just  quoted,  and  now  remember  it,  and  de- 
clare the  same  to  be  true? 

A718. — I  made  it  from  my  own  knowledge,  and  fully  remem- 
ber that  it  was  at  that  time  true. 

Int.  33. — What  would  you  estimate  the  cost  of  the  fort, 
dwelling-houses,  store-houses,  and  all  other  buildings  existing 
or  near  by  the  fort  at  Vancouver,  to  have  been? 

Ans. — I  did  estimate,  while  there,  the  cost  of  the  erection 
of  the  fort  and  the  accompanying  buildings  at  the  sum  of 
about  fifty  thousand  ($50,000)  dollars.  Captain  Hudson  coin- 
cided with  me  in  this  estimate. 

(Captain  Hudson's  opinion  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Int.  34. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your 
report :  "  The  farm  at  Vancouver  is  about  nine  (9)  miles  square. 
On  this  they  have  two  dairies,  and  milk  upwards  of  one  hun- 
dred (100)  cows.  There  are  also  two  (2)  other  dairies  situated 
on  Wappatoo  Island,  on  the  Willamette,  where  they  have  one 
hundred  and  fifty  (150)  cows?" 

Ans. — I  did.  Wappatoo  Island,  I  understand,  is  now  known 
as  Sauvies'  Island. 

Int.  35. — Whether  or  no  you,  from  your  own  knowledge, 
used  the  language  just  quoted,  and  now  remember  it,  and  de- 
clare the  same  to  be  true  ? 

Ans. — No;  this  is  not  of  my  own  knowledge,  but  knowledge 
derived  from  the  officers  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  I 
remember  their  statements,  and  believe  them  to  be  true. 

Int.  30. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your 
report:  "One  afternoon  we  rode  with  Mr.  Douglas  to  visit 
the  dairy  farm,  which  lies  to  the  west  of  Vancouver  on  the 
Callapuya;"  [Cathlapootl]  and  do  you  remember  it,  and  de- 
clare it  to  be  true? 

A718. — Yes,  sir ;  I  did  see  it,  and  I  do  remember  it. 

Int.  37. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your 
report:  "They  have  likewise  a  grist-mill  and  saw-mill,  both 


281 


well  constructed,  about  six  miles  above  Vancouver  on  the  Co- 
lumbia river.  I  visited  the  grist-mill,  which  is  situated  on  a 
small  stream,  but  owing  to  the  height  of  the  river,  which  threw 
a  quantity  of  back-water  on  the  wheel,  it  was  not  in  action. 
The  mill  has  one  run  of  stones,  and  is  a  well-built  edifice. 
The  saw-mill  is  two  (2)  miles  beyond  the  grist-mill.  A  similar 
mistake  has  been  made  in  choosing  its  position,  for  the  mill  is 
placed  so  low,  that  for  the  part  of  the  season  when  they  have 
most  water  they  are  unable  to  use  it.  There  are  in  it  sev- 
eral runs  of  saws,  and  it  is  remarkably  well  built.  The  qual- 
ity of  timber  cut  into  boards  is  inferior  to  what  we  should 
deem  merchantable  in  the  United  States,  and  is  little  better 
than  our  hemlock.  They  have  a  large  smith-shop  here,  which, 
besides  doing  the  work  of  the  mill,  makes  all  the  axes  and 
hatchets  used  by  the  trappers." 

A718. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  38. — Whether  or  no  you,  from  your  own  knowledge, 
used  the  language  just  quoted,  and  now  remember  it  and  de- 
clare the  same  to  be  true? 

Ans. — From  my  own  knowledge,  drawn  from  observation, 
I  remember  it,  and  declare  the  same  to  be  true. 

Int.  39. — What  do  you  estimate  the  cost  of  all  the  buildings 
on  the  farms  about  Vancouver  and  at  Sauvie's  Island,  of  the 
grist  and  saw-mills,  together  with  the  large  smith's  shop,  to 
have  been? 

Ana. — The  cost  of  the  four  dairies  might  have  been  from 
one  hundred  and  fifty  (150)  to  two  hundred  (^200)  dollars  each, 
that  of  the  grist-mill  three  hundred  ($300)  dollars,  and  that  of 
the  saw-mill  and  blacksmith  shop  four  thousand  five  hundred 
($4,500)  dollars.  The  cabins  at  the  2  mills  were  worth  one 
thousand  ($1,000)  dollars. 

Int.  40. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your  re- 
port: "The  stock  on  the  Vancouver  farm  is  about  three  thou- 
sand (3,000)  head  of  cattle,  two  thousand  five  hundred  sheep, 
and  about  three  hundred  brood  mares?" 

Ans. — I  did,  and  the  information  was  derived  from  the 
officers  of  the  Company,  and  I  remember  it,  and  believe  it  to 
be  true. 


I 


» 


11' yi 


:• 


mti 


282 

Jnt.  41. — Whether  or  no  you  ever  heard  or  know  of  any 
particular  boundaries  or  lines,  natural  or  artificial,  to  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company's  lands  or  pasturage  at  Vancouver? 

Ans. — I  never  did.  The  Company  told  mo  they  had  nine 
miles  square.  I  know  of  no  maps  or  descriptive  boundaries  in 
existence. 

Int.  42. — What  would  you  estimate  the  value  of  a  tract  of 
land  extending  in  front  along  the  bank  of  the  Columbia  river 
from  a  point  a  few  miles  above  the  saAV-mill,  to  the  Callapuya 
[Cathlapootl]  river  about  twenty-five  (2.5)  miles,  and  back- 
ward from  the  Columbia  river  about  ten  (10)  miles? 

Ati». — As  an  agricultural  space  or  area,  with  the  exception 
of  a  mile  square  about  Vancouver,  for  agricultural  purposes 
my  estimate  would  be  a  little  above  that  of  the  public  lands 
per  acre,  say  from  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  (^1.25)  to 
one  fifty  ($1.50)  per  acre.  The  space  from  about  a  niilo  and 
a  quarter  to  a  mile  and  a  half  to  the  westward,  where  the  Cal- 
lapuya [Cathlapootl]  comes  to  its  mouth,  some  fifteen  {15)  miles, 
and  back  from  the  river  some  five  (5)  miles  in  breadth  is  entirely 
submerged,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  knolls  and  the  river 
bank,  in  the  months  of  June  and  July,  by  the  waters  of  the 
Columbia,  so  as  to  preclude  any  raising  of  grain,  and  unfit, 
therefore,  for  any  crops.  Above  the  fort  some  three  (3)  miles 
it  is  in  like  manner  submerged.  With  reference  to  the  high 
prairie,  the  soil  is  there  of  the  character  of  the  high  prairie — 
gravelly  and  thin. 

IiH.  43. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your  re- 
port: "From  the  circumstance  of  this  annual  inundation  of 
the  river  prairies,  they  will  always  be  unfit  for  husbandry,  yet 
they  are  admirably  adapted  for  grazing,  except  during  the 
periods  of  high  water.  There  is  no  precaution  that  can  pre- 
vent the  inroad  of  the  water.  At  Vancouver  they  were  at  the 
expense  of  throwing  up  a  long  embankment  of  earth,  but 
without  the  desired  eflfect." 

Ans. — I  made  this  statement,  and  remember  the  circum- 
stances. 

Jnt.  44. — About  how  many  square  miles  of  the  tract  of  land 


283 


described  in  interrogatory  No.  42  were  subject  to  this  annual 
inundation? 

Ans. — Taking  t'le  dimensions  given,  about  scvcnty-fivo  (75) 
square  miles  below  and  about  five  square  miles  above  Van- 
couver. 

(All  the  above  interrogatories  which  contain  language  pur- 
porting to  be  used  by  the  witness  in  his  report  of  an  exploring 
expedition  and  the  answers  thereto,  and  all  other  questions 
and  answers  relating  to  said  language,  objected  to  as  incom- 
petent and  irrelevant.) 

Int.  45. — Whether  or  no  Mr.  Drayton,  an  officer  connected 
with  your  expedition,  was  detached  l)y  you  to  ascend  the  Co- 
lumbia river  as  far  as  Walla-Walla,  a  post  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  in  the  year  1841 ;  if  so,  state  whether  he  made 
an  official  report  to  you,  and  whether  he  is  now  alive. 

Ans. — He  did,  under  orders  from  me,  make  a  part  of  the 
survey  and  a  report  of  his  observations.  In  obedience  to  my 
orders  he  went  to  Walla-Walla  and  the  country  beyond  as  far 
as  the  Grand  Ronde  in  the  Blue  Mountains.  He  visited 
Walla-Walla.     He  is  not  alive;  he  died  in  1859. 

Int.  46. — Whether  or  not  you  used  this  language  in  your 
report:  "Fort  Walla- Walla  is  about  two  hundred  (200)  feet 
square,  and  is  built  of  pickets,  with  a  gallery  or  staging  on  the 
inside,  whence  the  pickets  may  be  looked  over.  It  has  two  (2) 
bastions,  one  on  the  southwest  and  the  other  on  the  north- 
east. On  the  inside  are  several  buildings,  constructed  of  logs 
and  mud;  one  of  them  is  the  Indian  store;  the  whole  is  cov- 
ered with  sand  and  dust,  which  is  blown  about  in  vast  quan- 
tities. The  climate  is  hot  and  everything  about  the  fort  seems 
so  dry  that  it  appeared  as  if  a  single  spark  would  ignite  the 
whole  and  reduce  it  to  ashes." 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

(The  above  question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Int.  46. — Whether  or  no  you  now  remember  that  in  the 
words  just  quoted  you  embodied  a  part  of  Mr.  Drayton's  offi- 
cial report  to  you? 

Ans. — I  do,  and  believe  them  to  be  true,  both  as  to  facts 
and  circumstances. 


I 


i 


i\ 


284 

(Above  question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent  and 
irrelevant.) 

Int.  47. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your 
report:  "There  is  very  little  vegetation  near  the  Fort,  not 
only  on  account  of  the  heat  and  dryness,  but  owing  to  the 
vast  clouds  of  drifting  sand,  which  a»'o  frequently  so  great  as 
to  darken  the  sky.  In  summer  it  b'.ows  hero  constantly,  and 
at  night  the  Avind  generally  amounts  to  a  gale;"  an>i  whether 
you  remembered  it  to  have  embodied  a  part  of  Mr.  Drayton's 
report. 

Ana. — I  did  use  it,  and  firmly  believe  it  to  be  true,  both  in 
facts  and  circumstances. 

(The  above  question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Int.  48. — Whether  or  no  you  detached  Lieutenant  Johnson, 
an  officer  under  your  command,  to  visit  Forts  Okanagan,  Col- 
ville,  and  other  places,  and  gave  him  these  orders,  and  others: 
"Your  inquiries  at  posts  and  forts  will  lead  to  much  informa- 
tion of  the  country,  with  capabilities,  productions,  climate, 
soil,  &c. ;  they  will  particularly  embrace  the  following,  viz : 
How  long  ih^  posts  or  forts  have  been  occupied;  state  of  fur 
trade  in  tl^e  interior;  number  of  forts  established;  where, 
and  among  what  tribes." 

Ans. — I  did. 

(The  above  question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent 
and  irrelevant.) 

Int.  49. — Whether  or  no  Lieutenant  Johnson  visited  Forts 
Okanagan  and  Colville  and  officially  reported  to  you  what  he 
saAv  and  learned  there,  and  whether  he  is  now  alive. 

Ans. — He  did ;  he  visited  those  forts  in  obedience  to  his 
orders,  and  made  his  report,  including  note-books,  maps,  and 
surveys,  to  me.    He  has  been  dead  some  six  or  seven  years. 

(The  above  question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent 
and  irrelevant.) 

Int.  50. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your  re- 
port :  "  Okanagan  is  situated  on  a  poor,  flat,  sandy  rock,  about 
two  miles  above  the  junction  of  the  river  of  that  name  with 
the  Columbia.  It  is  a  square,  picketed  in  the  same  manner 
as  those  already  described,  but  destitute  of  bastions;  and  re- 


285 


movctl  sixty  (GO)  yards  from  tho  Columbia,  within  the  pickets, 
there  is  a  large  house  for  the  reception  of  tho  Cnmpany'H  offi- 
cers, consisting  of  several  apartments,  and  from  each  end  of 
it  two  rows  of  low  mud  huts  run  towards  tho  entrance.  These 
serve  as  offices,  and  dwellings  for  tho  trappers  and  their  fami- 
lies. In  the  centre  is  an  open  space.  Besides  tho  care  of 
the  barges  for  navigating  tho  river,  and  the  horses  for  the 
land  journey  to  the  northern  posts,  they  collect  here  what 
skins  they  can.  Tho  country  affords  about  eighty  beaver  skins 
during  the  year,  the  price  of  which  is  usually  twenty  charges 
of  powder  and  ball.  Some  bear,  marten,  and  other  skins  are 
also  obtained,  for  which  the  prices  vary,  and  it  appears  to  bo 
the  practice  of  the  Company  to  buy  all  the  skins  that  uva 
brought  in,  in  order  to  encourage  the  Indians  to  procure  thoLi. 
At  this  post  they  have  some  goats  and  (35)  thirty-live  Iioad  of 
very  fine  cattle,  which  produce  abundance  of  milk  and  '•  tter. 
The  soil  is  too  p^'^r  Cor  farming  operations,  and  only  a  few 
potatoes  are  grown." 

Ans. — I  did. 

(Above  question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Ifit.  51. — Whether  or  no  you  now  remembei  that,  in  the 
words  just  quoted,  you  embraced  a  part  of  Lieutenant  John- 
son's official  report  to  you? 

Ans. — I  do  remember  it,  and  believe  the  facts  and  circum- 
stances therein  stated  to-  be  accurate  and  true. 

(Above  question  and  answer  objected  to,  as  incompetent  and 
irrelevant.) 

Int.  52. — Whether  or  not  you  used  this  language  in  your 
report:  "The  largest  stream  passed  was  one  near  Colvile,  on 
which  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  have  their  grist-mill.  Within 
two  miles  of  the  fort,  the  house  of  the  Company's  storekeeper 
was  passed.  Lieutenant  Johnson  having  reached  Fort  Colvile 
with  his  party,  it  Avas  determined  that  they  should  spend  three 
days  there.  Fort  Colvile  is  situated  on  the  east  bank  of  the 
Columbia  river,  just  above  the  Kettle  Falls.  In  this  place,  the 
river,  pent  up  by  the  obstructions  below,  ha.  formed  a  lateral 
channel,  which  nearly  encircles  a  level  tract  of  land  containing 
about  two  hundred  acres  of  rich  soil.     Of  this  peninsuk  about 


f  I 


286 


one  hundred  and  thirty  r  ores  are  in  cultivation,  and  bear  crops 
composed  chiefly  of  wheat,  barley,  and  potatoes.  Fort  Col- 
vile,  like  all  the  other  posts  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  is 
surrounded  by  high  pickets  with  bastions,  forming  a  formidable 
defensive  work  against  the  Indians.  Within  the  pickets  all  the 
dwellings  and  storehouses  of  the  Company  are  enclosed.  At 
Colvile  the  number  of  beaver  skins  purchased  is  but  small, 
and  the  packs  which  accrue  annually  from  it  and  its  two  out- 
posts, Kootanay  and  Flatheads,  with  the  purchases  made  by  a 
person  who  travels  through  the  Flathead  country,  amount  only 
to  forty,  (40,)  including  the  bear  and  wolf  skins.  Muskrats, 
martens,  and  foxes  arc  the  kinds  most  numerous  in  this  neigh- 
borhood. The  outposts  above  mentioned  are  in  charge  of  a 
Canadian  trader,  who  received  his  outfit  from  Colvile." 

J./  V. — I  did. 

(Above  question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Lit-  53. — Whether  or  no  you  remember  that  in  the  words 
just  quoted  you  embodied  a  part  of  Lieutenant  Johnson's  offi- 
cial report  to  you? 

Ans. — I  remember  that  I  did  embody  part  of  his  report,  and 
believe  the  facts  cited  to  be  true. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent  and  irrele- 
vant.) 

Int.  .54. — AVhether  or  no  you  detached  Lieutenant  Emmons, 
an  officer  under  your  command,  and  gave  him  this  order  and 
others:  "  Should  you  visit  any  of  the  forts  or  stations  of  the 
honorable  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  you  will  procure  every 
information  relative  to  them,  together  with  that  of  any  mis- 
sionaries;" and  whether  or  no  he  officially  reported  to  you 
what  he  saw  and  learned  in  regard  to  FortUmpqua? 

Ans. — I  did  give  him  those  instructions;  and  he  made  a  full 
official  report. 

Int.  55. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your 
report?  Fort  Umpqua  was,  like  all  those  built  in  this  coun- 
try, enclosed  by  a  tall  line  of  pickets,  with  bastions  at  diag- 
onal corners.  It  is  about  two  hundred  (200)  feet  square,  and 
is  situated  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  (150)  yards  from 
the  river,  upon  an  extensive  plain.     It  is  garrisoned  by  five 


287 


men,  two  women,  and  nine  dogs,  and  contains  a  dwelling  for 
the  superintendent,  as  well  as  storehouses,  and  some  smaller 
buildings  for  the  officer's  and  servants'  apartments? 

Ans. — I  did. 

Int.  50. — Whether  or  no  you  now  remember  that  in  the 
words  just  quoted,  you  embodied  a  part  of  Lieutenant  Em- 
mons's othcial  report  to  you? 

Ans. — I  remember  that  I  d,id  embody  a  part  of  his  report 
in  the  words  quoted,  and  believe  the  facts  and  circumstances 
related  to  be  true. 

(All  the  above  questions  relating  to  Lieutenant  Emmons  and 
the  language  relative  to  the  Umpqua  post,  and  the  answers 
thereto,  objected  to  as  incompetent  and  irrelevant.) 

Int.  57. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your 
report  in  reference  to  the  tract  of  country  known  as  Van- 
couver's Island,  Washington  Territory,  and  Oregon  :  "I  satis- 
fied myself  that  the  accounts  given  of  the  depopulation  of  this 
country  are  not  exaggerated,  for  places  were  pointed  out  to 
me  where  dwelt  whole  tribes  that  have  bden  entirely  swept 
off,  and  during  the  time  of  the  greatest  mortality  the  shores 
of  the  river  were  strewed  Avith  the  dead  and  dying.  This 
disease  occurs,  it  is  said,  semi-annually,  and  in  the  case  of 
foreigners  it  is  more  mild  at  each  succeeding  attack.  Owing 
to  the  above  causes,  the  population  is  much  less  than  I  ex- 
pected to  find  it.  I  made  every  exertion  to  obtain  correct 
information.  The  whole  Territory  may  be  considered  as  con- 
taining about  (20,000)  twenty  thousand  Indians ;  and  this 
from  a  careful  revision  of  the  data  obtained  by  myself  and 
some  of  the  officers  I  am  satisfied  is  rather  above  than  under 
the  truth.  The  whites  and  half-breeds  are  between  seven  and 
eight  hundred." 

Ans. — I  did;  and  now  remember  it  to  have  been  derived 
from  the  best  authority. 

(The  above  question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Int.  58. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your 
report:  "At  Vancouver  I  was  again  kindly  made  welcome 
by  Dr.  McLoughlin,  Mr.  Douglas,  and  the  officers  of  the 
establishment.     During   my  absence,  Mr.  Peter  Ogden,  chief 


I  n 

11. 


I 

it 
I 


I 


288 

factor  cf  the  northern  district,  had  arrived  with  his  brigade. 
Mr.  Ogden  had  been  (32)  thirty-two  years  in  this  country, 
and  consequently  possesses  much  information  respecting  it, 
having  travelled  nearly  all  over  it.  Furs  are  very  plenty  in 
the  northern  region,  and  are  purchased  at  low  prices  from  the 
Indians.  His  return  this  year  was  valued  at  ($100,000)  one 
hundred  thousand  dollars,  and  this  he  informed  me  was  much 
less  than  the  usual  amount.  On  the  other  hand,  the  southern 
section  of  this  country,  I  was  here  informed,  was  scarcely 
worth  the  expense  of  an  outlay  for  a  party  of  trappers." 
Ans. — I  did. 

(The  above  question  and  an  ,vcr  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 
Int.  59. — Whether  or  no  you  now  remember  the  language 
just  quoted,  and  declare  the  same  to  be  true  ? 
Ans. — I  do. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 
Int.  GO. — Whether  or  no  you  used  this  language  in  your 
report:  "The  trade  and  operations  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany are  extensive,  and  the  expense  with  which  they  are 
attended  is  very  great.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  it  is  hardly 
possible  for  any  one  to  form  an  exact  estimate  of  the  amount 
of  profit  they  derive  from  their  business  on  the  west  side  of 
the  mountains.  The  stock  of  the  Company  certainly  pays  a 
large  dividend ;  and  it  is  asserted  that,  in  addition,  a  very 
considerable  surplus  has  been  accumulated  to  meet  any  emer- 
gency; yet  it  may  be  questioned  whether  their  trade  in  Ore- 
gon Territory  yields  any  profit,  although  it  is  now  conducted 
at  much  less  cost  tl>an  formerly.  This  diminution  of  cost 
arises  from  the  fact  that  a  great  part  of  the  provisions  are 
now  raised  in  the  country,  by  the  labor  of  their  own  servants. 
The  value  of  all  the  furs  obtained  on  this  coast  does  not  ex- 
ceed forty  thousand  (^40,000)  pounds  annually;  and  when  the 
costs  of  keeping  up  their  posts,  and  a  marine  composed  of 
four  ships  and  a  steamer,  is  taken  into  account,  and  allowances 
made  for  losses,  interest,  and  insurance,  little  surplus  can  be 
left  for  distribution.  I  am,  indeed,  persuaded  that  the  pro- 
ceeds of  their  business  will  not  long  exceed  their  expenses, 
even  if  they  do  so  at  present.     The  statement  of  the  Com- 


289 


pany's  affairs  presents  no  criterion  by  which  to  judge  of  the 
successor  their  business  on  the  Northwest 'coast.  I  learned 
that  it  was  the  general  impression  among  the  officers  that  such 
has  been  the  falling  off  in  the  trade  that  it  does  not  now  much 
more  than  pay  the  expenses." 

Aiis. — I  did. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Jilt.  61. — Whether  or  no  you  now  remember  the. language 
just  quoted,  and  declare  the  same  to  be  true  ? 

Ans. — I  do. 

(Question  ard  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Int.  G2. — What  opportunities  did  you  have  for  learning  the 
value  of  the  trade  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  had  a  great  many  opportunities  of  learning,  in 
conversation,  and  eliciting  opinions,  in  relation  to  the  then 
value,  as  well  as  future  prospects,  of  the  trade  in  furs  and 
peltries  obtained,  the  modes  of  trapping,  fitting  out,  disci- 
pline, and  operations  at  their  various  posts,  the  times  and  sea- 
sons best  suited  for  the  conveyance  of  the  articles  dealt  in, 
both  by  land  and  water,  and  also  information  in  regard  to  the 
climate,  and  the  character  and  numbers,  and  intercourse  with 
the  Indians.  Also,  the  emigration  from  the  States,  and  the 
condition  in  which  the  parties  arrived  in  the  Territory,  together 
with  the  routes  most  practicable  through  the  Rocky  Mountains. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Int.  63. — What  do  you  mean  by  the  southern  section  of  this 
countr}'? 

Ans. — The  section  south  of  [the]  49°  parallel. 


■1  * 


^i 


Cross-Examination, 


Int.  1. — How  many  buildings  and  out-buildings  were  there 
at  Astoria  ? 

Ans. — I  think  about  five  (5.) 

Int.  2. — How  many  of  these  were  main  buildings,  and  how 
many  out-buildings? 

Ans. — I  think  there  was  one  main  building;  Birnie's  head- 
quarters had  two  rooms. 
19  H 


m 


m 


in . 


ifil 

lii 


290 

Int.  3. — How  many  sheds  were  there? 

A71S. — I  should  like  to  know  the  definition  of  a  ftJtcd. 

Int.  4. — Have  you  not  stated  and  caused  to  bo  published  in 
the  year  1850  the  following  about  the  post  at  Astoria:  "Half 
a  dozen  log  houses,  with  as  many  sheds,  and  a  pig-stye  or  two, 
are  all  that  it  can  boast  of." 

Ans. — It  was  published  in  1845.  The  paragraph  alluded 
to  was  descriptive  of  the  famous  Astoria  as  it  first  met  my  e\c 
in  the  morning  after  my  arrival,  and  it  is  accurate  as  a  de- 
scriptive view  of  it  embraced  in  the  landscape. 

lilt.  5. — In  estimating  the  cost  of  buildings  at  Astoria,  did 
you  make  your  estimate  of  their  cost  at  the  time  you  saw  them 
from  their  then  appearance  or  not  ? 

Ans. — Having  given  my  estimate  of  their  cost  in  the  direct 
examination,  I  make  the  same  answer  I  did  then. 

Int.  G. — Do  vou  now  say  that  the  cost  of  those  buildings  at 
the  time  of  their  erection  was  five  or  six  hundred  dollars? 

Ans. — I  do  not  knoAV  when  they  were  erected,  but  I  say  that 
they  ought  not  to  have  cost  more  than  that. 

Int.  7. — What  is  the  value  to  the  United  States  of  a  position 
on  which  a  light-house  can  be  Greeted,  and  a  fortification  built, 
commanding  to  some  extent  the  entrance  of  one  of  the  largest 
rivers  within  its  domain? 

Ans. — I  think  it  is  of  no  value  to  the  United  States,  but  of 
great  value  to  the  commercial  world,  if  a  light-house  is  needed 
there.  I  am  of  the  opinion,  and  always  have  been  so,  from 
the  knowledge  I  have  of  the  Columbia  river  and  its  approaches, 
that  where  the  light-house  is  placed  it  is  useless.  Its  proper 
position  should  have  been  on  the  top  of  the  cape,  solely  for 
the  purpose  of  indicating  the  position  of  the.  cape  to  vessels 
approaching  at  night.  No  light-house  can  bo  of  any  service 
for  any  vessels  entering  the  Columbia  river  at  night.  For 
that  reason  I  deem  it  useless  where  I  understand  it  has  been 
placed. 

Int.  8. — Was  there  any  settlement  or  clearing  whatever  at 
any  place  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Cowlitz  when  you  were 
there? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 


291 


Int.  9.— Did  you  notice,  within  two  miles  of  the  place  you 
called  Champoeg  and  described  as  low  prairie,  any  higher 
ground  on  the  same  bank  of  the  river? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir,  I  did.  The  low  prairie  terminates  a  short  dis- 
tance below  the  sandspit  of  Champoeg.  There  the  rocky  ledge 
rises  some  fifteen  hundred  (1,500)  feet  in  height,  and  continues 
on  the  other  side  of  the  river,  and  back  on  the  same  side,  ex- 
tending down  the  river  some  fifteen  miles,  to  where  the  Willa- 
mette river  falls  abruptly  some  fifteen  or  twenty  feet.  All  this 
tract  with  rocky  ledges  is  unsuitable  for  cultivation.  Above 
Champoeg,  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Willamette  river,  the  lower 
prairie  extends  a  long  distance,  some  four  or  five  miles  in 
width :  thence  it  rises  to  a  second,  and  finally  to  the  upper 
prairie. 

Int.  10. — You  have  estimated  the  cost  of  the  erection  of  the 
fort  at  Vancouver  and  the  accompanying  buildings.  Do  you 
know  the  date  when  they  were  built,  the  cost  of  labor  at  the 
time,  the  value  of  the  materials,  or  the  danger  from  Indians 
to  be  guarded  against  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  the  time  the  buildings  or  the  pickets 
of  the  lower  fort  were  put  up.  The  building  of  the  original 
forts  on  the  second  steppes  is  alleged  to  have  been  in  1825, 
at  which  time  it  is  deemed  that  no  establishment  could  be 
erected  on  the  lower  prairie,  on  account  of  its  overflow.  It 
was  subsequently  built,  and  the  estimate  I  have  formed  of  the 
cost  of  the  buildings  is  derived  from  information  given  me  by 
Dr.  McLoughlin,  Sir  George  Simpson,  Mr.  Ogden,  and  Mr. 
Douglas,  who  described  to  me  the  facility  and  speed  with 
which  such  buildings  could  be  constructed;  likewise  the  quan- 
tity of  lumber  and  the  materials  used  in  the  construction.  At 
the  time  of  '  i  building,  and  from  the  nature  of  its  pickets, 
without  defences,  it  was  evident  that  all  apprehension  from 
attacks  of  Indians  had  passed. 

Int.  11. — How  long  did  you  stop  at  the  saw-mill  and  grist- 
mill at  the  time  you  say  the  water  had  backed  up  so  as  to  affect 
the  running  of  the  mill  ? 

Ans. — I  suppose  I  was  there  some  three  hours;  ample  time 
to  inspect  the  whole  establishment,  and  to  take  lunch. 


i 


I     ' 


I 


,   11 


H 


292 


Int.  12.— Did  you  ever  visit  and  inspect  these  mills  at  any- 
other  time,  and  is  all  your  personal  knowledge  from  observa- 
tion derived  from  the  visit  you  have  described  in  your  last 
answer  'i 

Ans. — No,  sir ;  I  think  I  rode  out  there  several  times  during 
my  stay. 

Int.  13. — Were  these  rides  you  have  mentioned  taken  at 
the  time  of  your  first  or  second  visit  to  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — My  second  visit. 

Jnt.  14. — At  the  time  of  your  second  visit  to  Vancouver 
what  was  the  stage  of  the  water  in  the  Columbia  river  ? 

Ans. — It  was  much  lower  than  at  the  first. 

Int.  lo. — Could  the  mills  you  have  spoken  of,  the  saw  and 
grist-mills,  have  been  built  without  the  aid  of  experienced  or 
skilled  workmen  and  millwrights  ? 

Ans. — I  think  they  could  with  an  intelligent  superintendent. 

Int.  16. — Do  you  suppose  that  the  person  who  superintended 
the  erection  of  those  mills  and  their  machinery  could  give  a 
more  accurate  statement  of  their  cost  than  you  could  from 
your  inspection  of  them? 

Ans. — He  might  in  a  few  particulars,  but  generally  I  think 
not. 

Int.  17. — Were  not  the  materials  used  in  this  saw-mill  better 
than  what  are  used  in  most  buildings,  so  that  in  few  indeed 
can  such  materials  be  seen  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir;  economical  construction  of  both  saw  and 
grist-mills  requires  strong  framing,  on  a  good,  strong  founda- 
tion. The  husk  frames  that  support  the  stones  require  special 
attention.  I  have  spoken  of  this  mill  a&  being  constructed  of 
good  timber,  but  it  was  apparent  to  me  that  it  had  been  badly 
located,  on  several  accounts,  and  the  gang  of  saws  was  indis- 
putable evidence  of  the  paucity  of  stream.  On  account  of  the 
want  of  water  for  any  duration  of  time,  it  was  necessary  to 
have  it  speedily  done.  The  presence  of  the  blacksmith  shop 
at  that  locality  was,  in  my  mind,  a  proof  that  repairs  are  fre- 
quently required,  and  promptly  to  be  made,  in  order  to  insure 
no  loss  of  time  by  the  advance  of  the  season. 

Int.  18. — Have  you  not,  in  speaking  of  this  mill,  made  this 


293 


statement,  and  caused  it  to  be  published,  in  the  year  1845,  as 
follows:  "It  is  remarkably  well  built.  In  few  buildings  in- 
deed can  such  materials  be  seen  as  are  here  used?  " 

Ans. — Yes,  sir,  I  have.  I  will  add  now  that  the  buildings 
themselves  have  very  little  more  to  do  with  the  mill  than  the 
watch-case  has  with  the  works. 

Int.  19. — Is  not  the  smith's  shop  you  have  mentioned  a 
large  one;  and  is  it  not  used  for  the  manufacture  of  axes  and 
hatchets  for  trappers,  at  the  rate  of  from  twenty-five  to  fifty 
per  day  ? 

Ans. — So  I  was  then  told,  and  believed  so. 

Int.  20. — Were  you  not  surprised  at  seeing  the  celerity  with 
which  these  axes  were  made? 

Ans. — I  might  have  been. 

Int.  21. — Have  you  not  once  positively  stated  that  you  were 
so  surprised  at  this  celerity  ? 

Ans. — I  probably  have  so  stated  in  my  book. 

Int.  22. — At  what  time  did  you  visit  the  Dairy  Farm,  on  the 
Callapuyas,  [Cathlapootl,]  in  company  with  one  of  its  officers, 
at  your  first  or  second  visit  to  the  post  ? 

Ans. — I  think  I  must  have  visited  it  at  both  times. 

Int.  23. — Did  you  ride  through  the  woods,  or  through  the 
open  prairies  on  your  way  ? 

Am. — Both. 

Int.  24. — Did  not  the  high  water  compel  you  to  go  through 
the  woods,  at  the  time  you  rode  there,  on  your  first  visit  to 
Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  we  went  through  the  woods,  and  through 
prairies  on  the  verge. 

Int.  25. — Is  not  the  Callapuya  also  called  the  Cathlapootl  ? 

Ans. — I  presume  it  is  ;  I  did  not  know  of  it  until  this  ex- 
amination. 

Int.  26. — At  which  visit  to  the  Callapuyas  [Cathlapootl] 
farms  did  you  see  the  large  herds  of  cattle  feeding  and  re- 
posing? 

Ans. — At  my  first  visit. 

Int.  27. — At  the  time  you  visited  Callapuyas,  or  Cathla- 


294 


pootl  farm,  was  there  not  a  dairy  establishment,  managed  by 
a  Canadian  and  his  wife? 

Aus. — So  I  was  told. 

Int.  28. — Have  you  not  stated,  and  is  it  not  printed,  as 
follows :  *'  And  at  the  dairy  we  were  regaled  with  most  ex- 
cellent milk,  and  found  the  whole  establishment  well  managed 
by  a  Canadian  and  his  wife?" 

An)i. — I  have  so  stated  in  my  report  of  the  expedition 
published  by  the  Government. 

Int.  20. — You  have  stated  that  you  were  at  Vancouver,  at 
your  first  visit,  for  eight  or  ten  days.  Will  you  state,  as  near 
as  you  can,  the  date  of  your  arrival  at  Vancouver,  and  the 
date  of  your  departure? 

Ans. — I  got  there  first  about  the  last  of  May,  and  left  on 
the  4th  day  of  June,  for  the  Willamette  Valley  ;  got  back  the 
12th,  and  left  again  on  the  17th  of  June.  I  call  all  this  one 
visit,  and  my  first  visit. 

Int.  30. — At  what  time  did  you  return  at  your  second  visit, 
and  how  long  did  you  remain  ? 

Ans. — I  returned  about  the  first  of  September,  and  re- 
mained several  weeks. 

Int.  31. — What  difference  was  there  in  the  height  of  the 
water  in  the  river,  between  the  time  you  arrived  there  on  the 
last  of  May,  and  when  you  left  there  on  the  4th  of  June? 

Ans. — The  river  was  rising,  and  was  higher  on  the  4th  of 
June,  than  when  I  first  arrived. 

Int.  32. — Had  it  began  to  fall  when  you  returned  from  the 
Willamette  ? 

Ans. — It  was  higher  when  I  left,  on  the  17th  of  June,  than 
at  any  time  during  my  first  visit. 

Int.  33. — Does  the  Columbia  river  overflow  its  banks  any- 
where, except  in  the  lower  prairie,  and  does  it  rise  anywhere, 
except  on  the  lower  parts  of  the  prairie? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  it  overflows  its  bank  anywhere, 
but  the  percolation  causes  all  its  own,  and  the  backwaters  of 
its  tributaries,  to  set  back  and  submerge  the  lower  grounds. 

Int.  34. — Have  you  not  stated,  in  speaking  of  the  Columbia 


295 


and  its  rise,  and  the  effect  on  the  prairie,  that  the  water  rises 
on  the  low  parts  of  the  prairie  ? 

Aiis, — I  liave  so  stated. 

Int.  3o. — Did  you  not  see  in  the  granary  of  the  Company, 
wheat,  flour,  barley,  and  buckwheat? 

Ans. — Yes;  but  I  do  not  know  that  they  came  from  the 
farm. 

lut.  30. — At  the  time  you  were  at  Vancouver,  did  you  see 
any  bulls,  of  the  English  breed  of  cattle  ? 

Ana. — I  think  I  saw  one  or  two. 

Int.  37. — Do  you  not  know  that  a  milch  cow  sold  in  the 
Willamette  Valley  about  the  time  you  were  there  for  sixty  (60) 
dollars? 

Ans. — Yes;  the  enhanced  price  was  owing  to  the  great  diffi- 
culty in  breaking  the  wild  cattle  to  milch  cattle. 

Int.  38. — Do  you  not  consider  the  situation  of  Vancouver 
favorable  for  agricultural  purposes,  and  have  you  not  so  stated? 

Ans. — I  think  I  have  not  so  stated,  nor  do  I  consider  its 
value  to  consist  in  agricultural  purposes. 

Int.  39. — Have  you  not  stated  in  a  report  purporting  to  be 
written  by  you  after  a  certain  exploration,  and  published,  that 
the  situation  of  Vancouver  is  favorable  for  agricultural  pur- 
poses ? 

Ars. — I  think  not,  sir;  on  the  contrary,  I  think  I  have 
given  reasons  why  it  is  not  so. 

Lit.  40. — Is  not  Vancouver  at  the  head  of  navigation  for 
sea-going  vessels  on  the  Columbia  river? 

Ans. — I've  said  that  it  may  be  so  considered,  but  vessels  go 
above  it  /ibout  forty  miles,  to  the  foot  of  the  Cascades. 

\_Addition  to  the  answer  to  cross-interrogatory  39. — I  find  on 
examination  that  I  made  this  statement,  but  it  has  reference 
to  the  mile  square  around  Vancouver.] 

Int.  41. — Can  a  vessel  drawing  fourteen  feet  of  water  reach 
Vancouver  at  the  lowest  state  of  the  river  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  I  think  she  can ;  indeed  I  may  say  I  know  she 
can. 

Int.  42. — Is  not  Vancouver  the  most  eligible  site  on  the 


•  n 


m 

n 


'III! 


I 


■  I 


Hij 

llllit 

||||| 

lill 

wIIh'  iI  1 

^Ulni  i 

mn 

296 

river  for  the  building  up  of  a  commercial  town  when  the  coun- 
try should  become  populated  ? 

Ans. — As  far  as  my  opinion  goes  I  think  it  is. 

Int.  43. — Have  you  not  stated  that  "Vancouver  is  a  large 
manufacturing,  agricultural,  and  commercial  depot;  and  also 
that  the  Company's  establishment  at  Vancouver  is  upon  an 
extensive  scale,  and  is  worthy  of  the  vast  interest  of  which  it 
is  the  centre?" 

Atis. — I  have,  or  words  to  that  effect.  Those  remarks  are 
to  be  confined  to  the  operations  of  the  Company,  to  its  wants 
and  business.  It  is  not  to  be  understood  as  embracing  a  gen- 
eral view  of  manufactures  and  trade  relative  to  commerce. 

Int.  44. — When  did  you  see  the  Columbia  river  at  its  lowest 
stage? 

Ans. — In  the  latter  part  of  September. 

Int.  45. — Did  you  visit  the  Callapuyas  or  Cathlapootl  farm 
in  the  latter  part  of  September? 

Ans. — It  strikes  mo  that  I  did. 

Int.  46. — State,  if  you  can,  w^hcther  there  is  not  a  lake,  or 
a  series  of  "lakes,  at  low  water,  extending  from  a  point  two  or 
three  miles  below  Vancouver  nearly  to  Cathlapootl. 

Ai}S. — The  whole  country  within  a  mile  and  a  half  of  Van- 
couver westward,  has  the  appearance  of  a  low,  marshy  ground, 
such  as  the  retiring  of  the  Columbia  floods  would  present. 

Int.  47. — Did  you,  or  did  you  not,  observe  any  collection 
or  collections  of  water  between  the  points  described  in  the 
former  question  at  the  time  specified? 

Ans. — The  Callapuyas  or  Cathlapootl  creek  might  be  traced 
to  some  distance  by  large  spaces  of  water  lying  on  either  side 
of  it  as  far  as  the  eye  could  reach. 

Int.  48. — Did  you  witness  the  Columbia  at  its  greatest  and 
least  heights? 

Ans. — From  the  accounts  I  received  from  creditable  wit- 
nesses, I  do  not  believe  that  I  saw  it  either  at  one  or  the  other. 

Int.  49. — Have  you  not  stated,  in  a  report  made  after  your 
visit  to  Columbia  river  in  1841,  and  published,  that  "  I  wit- 
nessed the  Columbia  at  its  greatest  and  least  heights?" 

Ans. — If  I  did  so,  it  was  with  reference  to  the  time  of  my 


297 


visit.  I  could  not  have  intcnfled  those  words  to  apply  to  all 
times  and  all  seasons,  for  I  had  the  most  reliable  information 
from  Mr.  Ogden  and  Mr  Birnie,  that  the  Colunil»ia  had  swept 
over  even  the  site  of  the  present  Fort  Vancouver.  This  circum- 
stance, when  there,  I  should  have  deemed  almost  impossible. 
About  two  miles  below  Fort  Murrier,  at  the  mouth  of  the  lower 
Willamette,  there  is  a  bar,  which  at  times  I've  been  informed 
has  less  than  ten  (10)  feet  of  water  on  it  in  the  lowest  stages 
of  the  water. 

(The  portion  of  this  answer  of  the  witness  stated  upon  in- 
formation objected  to.) 

Int.  50. — What  section  of  country  did  you  mean,  when,  in 
speaking  of  the  number  of  cattle  in  it,  you  stated  that  there 
were  upwards  of  (10,000)  ten  thousand  cattle  in  1841.  Was 
it,  or  was  it  not,  the  Willamette  Valley? 

Ans. — It  was  not,  as  regards  the  Willamette  Valley.  It  was 
most  probably  intended  for  the  whole  country  as  far  as  54° 
40',  and  derived  from  most  reliable  information. 

Int.  51. — What  country  do  the  parties  which  trap  on  their 
way  go  to  from  Vancouver,  and  return  with  cattle? 

Ans, — California. 

Int.  52. — Is  this  a  country  which  is  very  well  adapted  to 
the  raising  of  cattle  and  sheep? 

Ans. — There  are  plenty  of  cattle,  no  sheep  in  California. 

Int.  53. — Have  you  not  used  this  language  in  a  report  made 
after  your  exploration :  "  This  southern  country,  as  Avill  be  seen 
from  what  has  already  been  stated,  is  very  well  adapted  to 
the  raising  of  cattle  and  sheep;  of  the  former  many  have  been 
introduced  by  parties  which  trap  on  their  way  thither  and 
return  with  cattle?" 

Ans. — Yes  sir,  that  is  stated  in  my  report. 

Int.  54. — Did  not  Mr.  Ogden  bring  in  the  furs  collected  from 
all  the  posts  on  the  Columbia  and  its  tributaries  above  Van- 
couver, including  New  Caledonia  and  Colvile? 

Ans. — I  understood  from  Mr.  Ogden  that  he  had  brought 
in  all  the  furs  from  the  northern  posts,  and  doubt  whether  any 
of  the  posts  of  the  southern  section  of  the  country  were  re- 
ferred to.       ' 


298 


Int.  Cn. — Was  it  from  this  statement  of  Mr.  Ogdcn  that 
you  have  stated  that  the  southern  section  of  the  country  was 
scarcely  worth  the  exi)ense  of  an  outlay  of  a  party  of  trappers? 

Ans. — Not  only  from  the  statement  of  Mr.  Ogdcn,  but  from 
the  statonients  of  Dr.  McLoughlin,  Mr.  Douglas,  and  Sir 
George  Simpson;  with  all  of  whom  I  had  frequent  conversa- 
tions relative  to  the  value  and  expense  of  the  several  post- 
throughout  the  whole  country,  in  which  they  coincided  very 
nearly  in  opinion. 

Int.  AC). — Did  you  not  understand  distinctly  that  the  south- 
ern section  of  the  country  was  that  portion  of  the  country  not 
included  within  the  business  control  of  those  posts  of  the 
Company  from  Avhich  Mr.  Ogden  brought  the  furs,  with  his 
brigade,  arriving  at  Vancouver  in  the  month  of  June,  1841? 

A7\s, — From  the  indistinctness  of  the  question,  I  can  give 
it  no  definite  answer.  If  put  in  a  more  definite  form,  I  should 
bo  glad  to  afford  all  the  information  in  my  power. 

Int.  ku. — Were  there  any  settlers  at  Vancouver  and  Fort 
Astoria  Avhen  you  were  there  in  1841,  other  than  the  officers 
and  employes  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — I  think  there  were  a  number  of  persons  intending  to 
settle,  or  who  so  expressed  themselves  to  me;  whether  they 
had  settled  or  located  themselves,  I've  no  actual  knowledge. 

Itit.  o8. — Did  you,  at  either  of  your  visits  to  Vancouver  in 
1841,  see  a  single  house  or  dwelling,  of  any  kind  whatever, 
belonging  to  or  in  the  possession  of  any  person  other  than  an 
officer  or  an  employe  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  or  of 
some  one  or  more  of  the  officers  or  men  of  the  vessels  under 
your  command? 

Ans. — I  may  have  seen  houses  or  shanties  erected  about 
Fort  Vancouver  that  might  have  bee.i  occupied  by  others  than 
officers  or  employes  of  the  Company.  While  there,  I  was  fre- 
quently asked  by  the  visitors  and  emigrants  from  the  United 
States,  what  rights  they  had  in  the  country,  and  whether  or 
not  they  could  choose  locations  on  which  to  erect  shanties  and 
occupy  land.  *  * 

Int.  50. — Was  there  any  government  in  the  country  at  the 
time  of  your  visits  in  1841  ?  , 


290 


,  or  of 
under 


Auf. — I  <li<l  not  consitlcr  that  thcic  was  any. 

Int.  60. — Ilavo  you  not  stated,  in  speaking,  iit  a  report  made 
by  you  of  your  explorations  after  1841,  of  the  moniherH  of  the 
Willamette  Mission  and  Dr.  McLoughlin,  that  "they  invari- 
ably spoke  of  Dr.  McLoughlin  in  the  highest  terms.  Thcj 
were  averse  to  his  absolute  rule  of  the  whole  territory,  and, 
although  it  was  considered  by  them  as  despotic,  they  could 
not  adduce  any  instance  of  the  wrong  application  of  his 
power?" 

A)t8.—^Tho  paragraphs  quoted  arc  to  bo  understood  as  re- 
ferring to  the  moneyed  power  which  Dr.  McLoughlin,  being  at 
the  head  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  could  give  or  with- 
hold at  his  pleasure.  In  some  cases,  he  thought  proper  to 
extend  a  helping  hand,  or  afford  means  to  settlers,  while  in 
other  cases  he  denied  it.  This  was  calculated  to  produce  a 
great  deal  of  ill  feeling,  as  well  as  good  feeling. 

Int.  61. — Have  you  not  also  stated,  at  the  same  time,  and  in 
the  same  report,  in  speaking  of  the  settlers,  that  "the  settlers 
are  also  deterred  from  crimes,  as  the  Company  have  the  power 
of  sending  them  to  Canada  for  trial?" 

Ans. — I  have  stated  so;  and  this  applies  to  those  settlors 
who  were  formerly  in  the  service  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany. 

Int.  62. — So  far  as  your  knowledge  extends,  has  Dr. 
McLoughlin  extended  to  new-comers  and  settlers,  of  good 
character,  every  facility  in  his  power,  and  also  invariably 
given  them  the  use  of  cattle,  horses,  farming  utensils,  and  sup- 
plies, to  facilitate  their  operations  until  such  time  as  they  are 
able  to  provide  for  themselves  ? 

Ans. — I  think  he  has.  All  cases  of  any  misunderstand- 
ing between  himself  and  settlers,  that  came  to  my  knowledge, 
proved  his  liberality  and  solicitude  for  their  welfare. 

Int.  63. — Did  not  the  officers  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany aflford  to  yourself,  and  the  officers  under  ycur  command, 
every  facility  within  their  power  to  further  the  i;xploration  in 
which  you  were  engaged? 

Ans. — I  think  they  did,  sir. 

Int.  64. — Look  at  this  letter,  now  shown  to  you  and  marked 


IH 


m 


i:«, 


300 

Exhibit  A,  and  state  whether  the  letter  of  which  it  purports 
to  be  a  copy  was  written  by  you  and  sent  to  the  person  to 
whom  it  is  addressed. 

Ans. — I  wrote  the  letter  of  which  the  letter  now  shown  to 
me  is  a  correct  copy,  and  sent  it  to  the  persons  to  whom  it  is 
addressed. 

Int.  Gi). — Look  at  this  extract  from  a  letter,  marked  Exhibit 
B,  and  state  whether  it  is  an  extract  from  the  letter  from  which 
it  purports  to  be  taken,  written  by  you  to  John  McLoughlin, 
Esq.,  and  sent  to  the  person  to  whom  it  is  addressed. 

Ans. — That  is  a  correct  extract  from  the  letter,  and  was  sent 
as  directed. 

Int.  6G. — What  nu  'ber  of  posts  are  occupied  by  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  in  the  territory  used  by  them  on  the  north- 
west coast  ?  Are  not  these  posts  located  at  the  best  points  for 
trade,  so  as  to  secure  the  resort  of  the  Indians  without  inter- 
fering with  their  usual  habits  ?  Did  not  the  Company  also 
occupy  places  in  the  vicinity  of  the  abodes  of  the  Indians 
during  the  most  favorable  part  of  the  year  for  obtaining  the 
proceeds  of  their  hunting  ? 

Ans. — I  think  they  did.  At  that  time  it  was  so.  I'm  not 
prepared  to  speak  as  to  the  present  time.  I  was  told  that 
they  had  twenty-five  posts. 

Me-Examination. 


Ui 


m. 


Int.  1. — What  was  the  value,  in  1841,  of  the  square  mile  of 
land  around  Fort  Vancouver,  excepted  by  you  in  your  answer 
to  the  42d  interrogatory  of  the  direct  examination,  which  trac; 
of  land  you  have  described  as  favorable  for  agHcultural  pur- 
poses? 

Ans. — I  judge  it  was  worth  some  ten  or  twelve  thousand 
dollars. 

Int.  2. — Whether  or  no  you  own  and  manage  a  saw  and 
grist-mill,  and  consider  yourself  competent  to  estimate  the  cost 
of  such  mills? 

Ans. — I  do  own  saw-mills  and  grist-mills,  and  have  had  com- 
petent persons  to  manage  them.     I  have  built,  repaired,  and 


301 


r 


rebuilt  them,  and  from  the  expenses  incurred  I  deem  myself  to 
be  competent  to  pass  an  opinion  on  their  efficiency  and  value. 

I7it.  3. — What  was  the  average  price  of  unbroken  cattle  in 
the  Willamette  Valley  in  1841? 

Ans. — About  ten  dollars,  (SlO*) 

Int.  4. — Whether  or  no  you  consider  that  it  would  be  safe 
for  a  sailing  vessel  to  pass  at  night  in  or  out  of  the  mouth  of 
the  Columbia  river  even  if  there  were  a  light-house  on  Cape 
Disappointment? 

Ans. — I  should  consider  it  impracticable  and  dangerous;  it 
is  very  dangerous  even  in  the  day-time. 

Int.  5. — Whether  or  no  you  ever  at  any  time  before  1S47  made 
any  estimate  of  the  value  of  all  the  posts  and  tra(''  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  south  of  the  49°  of  north  latitude;  if  so, 
state  under  what  circumstances  you  made  it,  and  what  it  was? 

Ans. — I  made  such  an  estimate  at  the  suggestions  of  many 
persons  connected  with  the  Government  and  Congress,  and  to 
Sir  George  Simpson  during  a  visit  of  his  to  Washington.  I 
think  this  visit  was  about  the  year  184G,  prior  to  or  about  the 
time  of  the  making  of  the  treaty.  The  amount  I  estimated 
then  to  be  Avorth  was  a  half  million  dollars  for  all  the  posts 
of  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Companies.  Sir  George 
Simpson  thought  it  ought  to  be  a  million.  I  told  him  that  it 
might  be  so,  but  advised  him  to  get  that  sum  inserted  in  the 
treaty,  for  I  thought  thai  if  he  left  it  out  of  the  treaty  he 
might  ijet  much  less. 

(Answer  objected  to  a.j  incompetent.) 

Cross- E.xamination  Resumed, 

Lit  1. — In  what  State  are  the  saw  and  grist-mills  that  you 
oAvn  situated? 

Ans. — One  within  two  miles,  and  some  Vfithin  twenty-five     ' 
miles  of  this  place. 

Int.  2. — Do  you  not  know  that  the  difference  in  the  cost  of 
mills  is  caused  by  a  difference  in  the  framing,  gearing,  and 
machinerv  ? 

Ans. — I  am  wil'ing  to  say  that  there  is  a  very  great  differ- 
ence in  the  cost  of  mills. 

Int.  3. — At  the  time  you  mado  this  estimate  which  you  speak 


l!ii 


''^-WHiaiili'ln'i 

■MmMim 


302 


of,  of  the  value  of  all  the  posts  and  trade  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  and  Pugct's  Sound  Companies  south  of  40°,  what  was 
your  estimate  or  idea  of  the  income  of  the  Companies  from 
those  posts  ? 

Ans. — My  idea  was  that  it  was  of  very  little,  if  any,  profit 
south  of  49°. 

Int.  4. — Was  it  on  this  profit  that  you  estimated  the  value 
of  their  trade  and  posts  to  be  five  hundred  thousand  dollars? 

Ans. — It  could  not  have  been  on  the  profits,  for  I  did  not 
believe  there  were  any.  Nor  can  I  at  the  present  time  desig- 
nate on  what  the  estimate  was  based.  I  merely  state  the  fact 
what  I  then  stated,  and  of  what  was  stated  to  me  by  Sir 
George  Simpson. 

Int.  5. — Was  your  estimate  of  the  value  of  all  the  outside 
the  mile  square,  and  included  within  certain  limits  at  Van- 
couver, and  also  your  estimate  of  the  value  of  that  mile  square 
at  ten  or  tw^elve  thousand  dollars  ($10,000  or  $12,000)  an  esti- 
mate based  upon  their  value  for  agricultural  and  pasturage 
purposes? 

Ans. — My  former  answers  to  these  questions  are  definitive. 

Charles  Wilkes. 


City  op  Charlotte,  \ 

County  of  Mecklenburg,  State  of  North  Carolina.  ) 

Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  the  matter  against  the  United 
States  in  the  above  case.  It  is  agreed  by  the  undersigned 
that  the  testimony  of  Rear  Admiral  Charles  Wilkes,  U.  S.  N., 
a  witness  procured  by  and  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  in  defence  to  the  claims  made  n.gainst  the  United 
States  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  before  the  British  and 
American  Joint  Commission  for  the  adjustment  of  the  same, 
shall  be  taken  before  Charles  Overman,  a  justice  of  the  peace 
for  and  in  the  county  and  State  aforesaid. 
This  the  31st  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1866. 

Edward  Lander, 

Of  Counsel  for  II.  B.  Co. 
Charles  C.  Be  am  an,  Jr. 
Attorney  for  the  United  States. 


303 

Exhibit  A. 

Copy.]  U.  S.  BiiiG  PoRPorsE, 

Baker's  Bay,  Octoha-  'k  1841. 

Gentlemen:  My  last  duty,  before  leaving;  the  Columbia,  I 
feel  to  bo  that  of  expressing  to  you  my  sincere  thanks  for  the 
important  aid  and  facilities  which  you  have  afforded  the  expe- 
dition, on  all  occasions,  for  carrying  out  the  object  of  our  visit 
to  this  part  of  the  world,  and  be  assured  it  will  prove  a  very 
pleasing  part  of  my  duty  to  make  a  due  representation  of  it 
to  my  Government. 

Your  personal  kindness  and  friendly  attentions  to  myself 
and  officers,  from  our  first  arrival,  and  also  to  Captain  Hud- 
son and  his  officers,  after  the  wreck  of  the  Peacock,  have  laid 
us  under  many  obligations,  which  I  trust  it  may  be,  at  some 
future  day,  in  our  power  to  return. 

We  all  would  request,  through  you,  an  expression  of  our 
feelings  for  the  many  attentions  and  kindnesses  received,  and 
the  pleasures  afforded  us  by  the  officers  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company's  service  with  whom  we  have  had  any  intercourse, 
which  will  be  long  remembered  with  pleasure. 

With  my  sincere  wishes  for  the  health,  happiness,  and  pros- 
perity of  yourselves  and  families,  I  am,  very  truly,  your 
obedient  servant, 

(Signed)  Charles  Wilkes, 

Commanding  Exploring  Expedition. 
To  John  McLoughlin  and  James  Douglas,  Esq's, 

OJiief  Factors  H.  B.  C.  Service,  Vancouver. 


Exhibit  B. 


Extract  from  letter  of  Captain  Wilkes,  dated  United  States 

brig  Porpoise,  Columbia  river,  October  2,  1841,  to  John 

McLaughlin,  Esq.,  Chief  Factor  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 

Fort  Vancouver. 

"In  making  this  request,  I  am  well  aware  of  the  desire  the 

Honorable  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  its  officers  have  always 


'im" 


804 

shown  to  do  everything  in  their  power  to  afford  relief  to  thoi<o 
in  distress,  and  the  deep  feeling  all  attached  to  this  squadron 
have  evinced  for  the  relief  extended  to  ourselves  individually 
during  the  late  disaster,  and  it  will  be  only  placing  a  suitable 
boat  in  the  hands  of  the  Company,  in  which  to  afford  relief 
more  promptly.  I  therefore  have  little  doubt  but  that  you 
will  not  object  to  assume  the  charge;  and  I  assure  you  it  will 
afford  me  great  satisfaction  hereafter  to  hear  that  she  has  been 
of  any  use  in  saving  lives  or  property." 


City  op  Charlotte,  ) 

Coiintt/  of  3L'c]dcnhurg,  State  of  North  Carolina,  j 

I,  Charles  Overman,  a  justice  of  the  peace  in  and  for  the 
county  and  State  aforesaid,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  fore- 
going deposition,  hereto  annexed,  of  Hear  Admiral  Charles 
Wilkes,  U.  S.  N.,  a  witness  produced  by  and  on  behalf  of  the 
United  States  of  America  in  defence  to  the  claims  made 
against  the  United  States  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
before  the  British  and  American  Joint  Commission  for  the 
adjustment  of  the  same,  was  taken  before  me  at  the  office  of 
the  First  National  Bank  of  Charlotte,  in  the  city  of  Charlotte, 
North  Carolina,  and  reduced  to  writing  under  my  direction 
and  in  my  personal  presence,  by  P.  P.  Zimmerman,  a  person 
agreed  upon  by  Charles  C.  Beaman,  Jr.,  Esq.,  attorney  for  the 
United  States,  and  Edward  Lander,  Esq.,  attorney  for  the  said 
Company,  beginning  on  the  2d  day  of  January,  A.  D.  18G7, 
continuing  from  day  to  day  until  the  4th  day  of  January, 
1867,  when  it  was  signed  according  to  the  date  appended  to 
said  deposition. 

I  further  certify  that  said  deposition  was  taken  before  me 
in  pursuance  of  the  written  agreement  hereto  annexed,  between 
said  Charles  C.  Beaman,  Jr.,  Esq.,  and  Edward  Lander,  Esq. 
I  further  certify  that  to  said  witness,  before  his  examination, 
I  administered  the  following  oath: 

"You  swear  that  the  evidence  which  you  shall  give  in  the 
matter  of  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against 


m  m 


305 

the  United  States  of  America  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  Grod." 

That  after  the  same  was  reduced  to  writing,  the  deposition 
was  carefully  read  to,  and  then  signed  by  said  witness. 

I  further  certify  that  Edward  Lander,  Esq.,  attorney  for 
said  Company,  Avas  personally  present  during  the  examination 
and  cross-examination  of  said  witness,  and  the  reading  and 
signing  of  his  deposition. 

I  further  certify  that  the  documents  marked  A  and  B,  hereto 
annexed,  are  those  referred  to  in  examination  of  said  witness. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  at  said 
office  the  4th  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1807. 

Charles  Overman,  J.  P. 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  vs.  the 

United  States. 


Deposition  of  anvitness  (on  behalf  of  the  United  States)  sworn 
and  examined  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  Eastern  District 
of  Pennsylvania,  before  me,  Charles  Sergeant,  United 
States  commissioner  in  and  for  the  Eastern  District  of 
Pennsylvania,  by  virtue  of  a  verbal  agreement  made 
and  entered  into  between  C.  C.  Beaman,  Esq.,  as  counsel 
for  the  United  States,  and  Edward  Lander,  as  counsel  for 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Testimony  of  George  Davidson. 

George  Davidson  being  first  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  testi- 
fies as  follows : 

Qiu'S.  1.  What  is  your  name,  residence,  and  present  occu- 
pation? 

Ans.  George  Davidson  ;  Germantown,  Philadelphia ;  I  am 
Assistant  United  States  Coast  Survey. 

Ques.  2.  Did  you  ever  visit  Cape  Disappointment  at  the 
entrance  of  the  Columbia  river,  and  if  so  in  what  capacity  ? 

Ans.  I  was  stationed  at  Cape  Disappointment  from  some 
20  H 


'"'  I 


'i:l!  I 


Mi'  J'  ■ 


»M;il 


306 

time  in  June  1851,  to  the  following  October,  in  charge  of  the 
astronomical  work  and  of  the  tojiographical  work,  having  special 
reference  to  the  propriety  of  locating  a  light-house  on  that 
cape. 

Ques.  3.  Whether  or  no  A.  M.  Harrison  was  an  assistant 
under  you  ? 

A71S. — Yes,  he  was. 

Ques.  4. — Whether  or  no  he  made  a  topographical  map  of 
Cape  Disappointment? 

Ans. — He  did  of  the  southern  part  of  the  cape. 

Ques.  5. — Whether  or  no  a  portion  of  the  map,  now  shown 
you,  entitled  "Mouth  of  Columbia  River,  &c.,  published  in 
1851,"  to  be  marked  "A,"  and  hereafter  annexed  to  your 
deposition,  is  a  reduced  copy  of  the  map  made  by  Mr.  Har- 
rison ? 

Ans. — It  is. 

Ques.  6. — Will  you,  from  your  own  knowledge,  dep^nbc 
this  cape? 

Ans. — It  is  a  rocky  promontory,  formed, by  hills  of  hori- 
zontal columnar  .basalt,  rising  at  the  highest  point  of  the 
cape  to  an  elevation  of  about  287  feet,  and  covered  with  a 
thin  stratum  of  vegetable  soil.  The  ocean  faces  of  the  cape 
are  rocky,  very  precipitous,  and  in  most  cases  inaccessible. 
For  the  most  part,  these  ocean  faces  are  covered  ^rom  a  line 
about  thirty  feet  above  the  water  with  grass  and  fern,  and 
destitute  of  trees  to  their  summits,  which,  at  the  southern 
part  of  the  cape,  are  very  narrow.  From  these  ridges  the 
land  slopes  more  gradually  towards  the  inner  side  of  the  cape 
facing  on  Baker's  Bay.  Along  the  shore  line,  inside  of  the 
cape,  are  two  short  stretches  of  low  ground,  with  good  land- 
ing beaches.  From  the  summit  of  the  ridges  to  the  inner  shores 
it  is  covered  with  a  dense  growth  of  fir  and  underbrush, 
through  which  I  had  to  open  and  grade  an  ox-sled  road  be- 
tween the  summit  of  the  cape  and  the  first  cove  inside. 
Landing  upon  the  outside  of  the  cape  is,  at  all  times,  danger- 
ous, and  can  only  be  effected  in  certain  localities  when  there 
is  no  sea  on. 

Ques.  7. — What  was  the  value  of  this  land  at  that  time? 


307 


Ans. — I  would  not  have  paid  the  Government  price  for  it. 
The  only  value  to  be  paid  upon  tlic  land  would  have  been  on 
iiccount  of  its  timber ;  but  the  whole  country  in  this  rcf^ion 
is  covered  with  as  good  timber,  and  more  accessible. 

Ques.  8. — Whether  or  no  you  ever  heard,  whe!i  you  were 
there  in  1851,  of  an  occupation  at  that  time,  or  any  previous 
.^ine,  of  this   cape  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — I  did  not. 

Quc8.  0. — Whether  or  no  you  saw  any  marks  of  previous 
occupation  or  any  marks  of  boundary  lines  of  this  cape? 

Ans. — I  saw  no  marks  of  th6  cultivation  of  the  soil  or  of 
any  timber  having  been  cut  upon  the  part  of  the  map  figured, 
but  there  were  buildings  erected  and  in  state  of  being  erected 
in  the  locality  designated  at  Pacific  City.  I  was  well  acquainted 
with  the  people  in  this  vicinity*and  with  Captain  Scarborough, 
living  at  Chinook,  and  formerly  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, and  cannot  remember  any  claim  being  intimated  or 
asserted  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  although  it  was  well 
known  for  months  that  I  was  occupying  the  cape  with  my 
parties  for  Government  work. 

(So  much  of  answer  to  interrogatory  ninth  as  refers  to  the 
statements  of  others  objected  to.) 

Ques.  10. — Whether  or  no  you  selected  a  point  for  the  loca- 
tion of  a  light-house? 

Ans. — I  did.  The  points  selected  by  me  were  the  highest 
point  of  Cape  Disappointment  and  Point  Adams,  on  the  south 
side  of  the  entrance — advising  that  two  lights  be  built;  but 
advising  that  if  only  one  should  be  constructed,  it  should  be 
at  Point  Adams,  because  the  south  channel  of  the  Columbia 
river,  passing  around  Point  Adams,  was  at  that  time,  and 
from  then  up  to  the  time  of  my  leaving  the  Pacific  coast,  in 
the  year  1860,  almost  invariably  used  by  vessels  entering  and 
leaving  the  Columbia  river;  and  because  I  have  known 
Cape  Disappointment  to  be  enveloped  in  fog  for  a  few  hours 
after  sunset,  while  Point  Adams  was  without  fog.  And  I  con- 
sidered it  practicable  that,  with  a  beacon  light  on  the  hills 
behind  Point  Chinook,  steamers  might  be  enabled  to  enter  and 
leave  the  river  by  the  south  channel  at  night.     This  they  can. 


hi 


308 


m 


M 


hot  do  by  cither  channel  now,  and  could  not  well  do  by  the 
north  channel  at  any  time,  because  the  shore  along  Baker's 
bay,  inside  of  Cape  Disappointment,  is  much  lower  than  Cape 
*Disii[)pointment,  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  establish  ran<Te 
ligiits.  The  light  on  Cape  Disappointment  is  used  altogetiier 
by  vessels  at  night,  as  a  mark  or  signal  by  which  to  know 
their  approximate  position  when  off  the  mouth  of  the  river. 
Vessels  coming  from  the  northward  cannot  see  the  light  as  at 
present  located  until  they  are  nearly  abreast  of  the  Cape. 

Qtnm.  11. — What  was  the  value,  in  1851,  for  public  purposes 
of  sufficient  land  for  the  proper  location  of  a  lighthouse,  and 
necessary  buildings  on  Cape  Disappointment? 

Aii8. — Not  more  than  the  Government  price  of  the  land. 
I  should  judge  that  the  amount  of  ground  required  for  the 
light-house  site  would  be  a  tract  of  land  lying  between  the 
height  and  the  first  small  cove  inside  the  cape,  about  seven 
hundred  yards  in  length  by  two  hundred  and  fifty  in  width ; 
this  would  give  ample  facility  and  space  for  the  construction 
of  a  road  from  the  landing  to  the  summit,  for  the  conveyance 
of  light-house  material,  and  a  small  patch  of  level  ground  at 
the  landing  for  residences  and  a  garden,  with  a  fine  spring  of 
water  at  the  landing.  This  tract,  when  I  was  there,  was  not 
worth  ton  dollars  to  anybody  to  locate  and  live  upon. 

Ques.  12, — What  is  the  character  of  the  entrance  to  the 
Columbia  river  ? 

Ans. — The  width  of  the  Columbia  river  between  Cape  Dis- 
appointment and  Point  Adams  is  nearly  six  miles.  Lying 
between  them  is  an  extensive  shoal,  known  as  the  Middle 
Sands.  The  inner  or  up-river  point  of  this  shoal  is  not  cov- 
ered at  high  water,  and  is  known  as  Sand  Island.  This  shoal 
divides  the  entrance  to  the  river  into  two  channels :  that  Ivin"; 
between  it  and  Cape  Disappointment  is  known  as  the  North 
channel,  and  that  between  it  and  Point  Adams  is  known  as 
the  South  channel.  The  entrance  to  each  of  these  channels 
is  obstructed  by  a  bar.  That  of  the  North  channel  had  gen- 
erally more  Avater  upon  it  than  the  bar  of  the  South  channel, 
but  the  North  channel  was  seldom  used  on  account  of  its 
greater  length,  and  being  a  dead-beat  to  windward  for  over 


309 


two  miles  The  South  channel,  although  more  changeable  in 
its  general  location,  is  almost  invariably  used,  on  account  of 
its  shortness  and  because  the  pilots  are  better  acquainted 
it.  I  have  entered  the  Columbia  river  by  the  South  channel 
as  late  as  1857.  From  the  top  of  Cape  Disappointment,  for 
several  months  in  1851,  (June  to  October,)  I  daily  saAV  the 
condition  of  the  two  bars ;  at  times  the  sea  was  so  smooth 
that  no  person,  except  one  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the 
ranges  and  marks  about  the  entrance  of  the  river,  could  have 
known  the  accurate  position  of  either  bar,  there  being  not 
less  than  five  fathoms  water  at  high  water  on  the  North  bar, 
and  not  less  than  four  and  a  quarter  fathoms  at  high  water 
on  the  South  bar.  At  other  times  I  have  seen  a  continuous 
line  of  fearful  breakers  extending  from  the  cape  northwest- 
erly, round  in  a  horse-shoe  form,  along  the  line  of  the  bar  and 
ocean  point  of  middle  sands  to  the  beach  a  mile  or  two  below 
Point  Adams.  At  such  a  time  it  would  have  been  impracti- 
cable and  unsafe  to  have  gone  in  or  have  taken  out  any  vessel 
through  either-  channel,  even  supposing  wind,  tide,  and  cur- 
rents to  be  favorable,  and  a  pilot  on  board.  I  have  frequently 
seen,  during  heavy  weather,  vessels  lying  off  and  on  for  a 
week  at  a  time,  unable  to  effect  an  entrance.  I  knew  of  one 
case,  but  did  not  see  it,  where  a  vessel  has  laid  off  and  on  over 
forty  days  in  vain  attempts  to  get  in.  I  have  known  lumber- 
laden  vessels  lying  in  the  river  for  over  two  weeks  trying  to 
get  out,  and  afraid  to  take  the  risks  of  going  through  a  break- 
ing bar.  My  general  conclusion  is,  and  always  has  been,  that 
the  Columbia  river  entrance  is  of  the  most  dangerous  char- 
acter, and  in  my  official  reports  and  directions  for  entering 
this   river   have    always    advised    the   waiting   for   a    pilot. 

Several  surveys  of  the  entrance  to  the  Columbia  river  have 
been  made  by  the  United  States  Coast  Survey,  but  their  sale 
is  only  made  with  a  distinct  understanding  that  they  represent 
the  condition  of  the  entrance  at  the  time  of  survey  only,  and 
not  for  any  other  period,  and  the  Coast  Survey  does  not  fur- 
nish sailing  directions  for  entering  the  river,  except  for  the 
particular  time  of  the  survey. 

Adjourned  to  May  7. 


''V 


¥ 


f.^'i 


l.V 


Bii. 


310 

(All  tho  foregoing  testimony  which  relates  to  the  cu.\nncls 
of  the  Columbia  river  objected  to.) 

CroH8- Examination. 

Qucs.  1. — After  you  left  this  place,  in  1851,  when  did  you 
return  to  it,  and  how  long  did  you  remain  there? 

An8. — I  returned  on  duty  again  in  1853,  but  cannot  state 
exactly  the  time  I  remained  in  tho  river,  but  about  a  week. 
I  think  I  was  in  again  in  1855,  and  was  in  twice  in  1857 — the 
first  time  about  a  week  or  two,  the  second  time  a  day  or  so. 
October,  1857,  was  tho  last  time  I  was  there. 

Ques.  2. — Is  not  your  personal  knowledge  of  the  use  made  of 
the  two  channels  of  the  Columbia  river  confined  to  the  times 
you  visited  it? 

Ans. — No;  because  I  have  been  ofiicially  called  upon  to 
make  examinations  and  comparison  of  the  different  surveys  of 
the  river  by  the  United  States  to  discover  the  law  of  changes 
in  the  channels,  draw  up  directions  for  entering  them,  and  to 
ascertain  the  amount  of  trade  in  the  river,  and  by  what  chan- 
nels that  trade  entered  and  left.  I  have  also  compared  all 
accessible  surveys  of  the  river,  from  tho  time  of  Vancouver  up 
to  those  made  by  the  Coast  Survey. 

(The  whole  of  the  above  answer  objected  to  which  refers  to 
anything  but  the  personal  observation  of  the  witness,  the  rest 
being  hearsay.) 

Ques.  3. — When  did  you  last  go  into  the  mouth  of  the  Co- 
lumbia river? 

Ans. — In  October,  1857. 

Ques.  4. — Can  you  state  how  many  Steamers  a  month  went 
to  Portland,  on  the  Willamette  river,  while  you  were  on  that 
coast? 

Ana. — I  have  not  been  on  that  coast  for  six  years. 

George  Davidson. 


United  States  of  America,     1 
Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania.  J 

I,  Charles   Sergeant,    United  States   Commissioner,    duly 
appointed  and   commissioned  by  the   Circuit   Court  of  the 


Sll 


United  States  in  and  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania, 
do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  deposition  of  (Jeorgo 
Davidson  was  taken  and  reduced  to  writing  by  me,  in  the 
presence  of  said  witness,  from  his  statements  on  the  sixth  and 
seventh  days  of  May,  18(37,  at  my  office,  No.  123  South  Fifth 
street,  Philadelphia,  in  pursuance  of  a  verbal  agreement  made 
in  my  presence  by  C.  C.  Beaman,  Esq.,  as  counsel  for  the 
United  States,  and  Edward  Lander,  Esq.,  as  counsel  for  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

I  further  certify  that  to  said  witness,  before  his  examina- 
tion, I  administered  the  following  oath  : 

"  You  do  swear  that  the  evidence  you  are  about  to  give  in 
the  matter  of  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against 
the  United  States  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God." 

I  further  certify  that  said  deposition  was  by  me  carefully 
read  to  said  witness,  and  then  signed  by  him  in  my  presence. 

I  further  certify  that  the  paper,  hereto  annexed,  marked 
"A,"  is  the  one  referred  to  in  the  foregoing  testimony  of 
George  Davidson. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereto  set  my  hand  and  affixed 
my  official  seal,  at  my  office  in  the  city  of  Philadel- 
phia, this  seventh  day  of  May,  1867. 

Charles  Sergeant, 
U.  S.  Oonir  in  and  for  the  Eastern  List,  of  Penn. 


[L.    S.] 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  vs. 

the  United  States. 


Deposition  of  a  witness  (on  behalf  of  the  United  States) 
sworn  and  examined  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  Eastern 
District  of  Pennsylvania,  before  me,  Charles  Sergeant, 
United  States  Commissioner  in  and  for  the  said  Eastern 
District  of  Pennsylvania,  by  virtue  of  a  verbal  agreement 
entered  into  between  C.  C.  Beaman,  Esq.,  as  counsel  for 


ft 


812 

the  United  States,  and  Edward  Lander,  as  counsel  for 
tlio  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Testimony  of  Alexander  M.  Harrison. 

Alcxanihr  M.  Harrison,  being  first  duly  sworn,  deposes  and 
testifies  as  follows: 

Ques.  1. — What  is  your  name,  residence,  and  present  occu- 
pation ? 

Ai}s. — Alexander  M.  Harrison ;  I  reside  at  Plymouth, 
Massachusetts ;  I  am  an  assistant,  United  States  Coast  Sur- 
vey. 

Quc8.  2. — Are  you  acquainted  with  Cape  Disappointment, 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river,  Washington  Territory  ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Ques.  3. — In  what  capacity,  and  when  did  you  become  ac- 
quainted with  it? 

Ans, — As  an  officer  in  the  United  States  Coast  Survey,  in 
1851. 

Ques.  4. — What  were  your  particular  duties  on  that  survey  r 

An%. — I  was  in  charge  of  a  topographical  party,  for  the 
purpose  of  making  a  topographical  survey  of  the  cape,  under 
the  direction  of  Assistant  George  Davidson. 

Ques.  5. — Look  at  this  map,  entitled  "  Mouth  of  the  Colum- 
bia River,  &c.,"  published  in  1851,  and  marked  "A,"  and  to 
be  hereafter  attached  to  your  deposition,  and  state  what  it 
represents. 

Ans. — It  represents  a  preliminary  survey  of  the  entrance  to 
the  Columbia  river,  and  some  distacce  Inside  the  entrance. 

Ques.  6. — Referring  to  that  part  of  the  map  marked  Cape 
Hancock  or  Disappointment,  state  what  it  represents. 

Ans. — A  minute  topographical  survey  of  all  the  features  of 
the  ground,  from  the  entrance  point  to  the  distance  of  a  little 
over  a  mile  northward,  embraced  between  the  inner  and  outer 
shores. 

Ques.  7. — Of  what  is  this  portion  of  the  map  a  copy  ? 

Ans. — A  reduced  copy  of  my  original  survey. 


m 


813 


msol  for 


oscs  and 

snt  occu- 

lymoutli, 
Dast  Sur- 

)intmcnt, 
ritory '{ 

icome  ac- 

urvey,  in 

;  survey  "r 
,  for  the 
)e,  under 

e  Colum- 
,"  and  to 
!  what  it 

trance  to 
ranee, 
ked  Cape 

atures  of 
)f  a  little 
md  outer 

py- 


Ques.  8. — Will  you  describe  the  various  marks  upDii  thin 
section  of  the  map,  and  explain  what  they  mean  ? 

An8. — Tho  darker  shades  upon  the  shorc-liiu'  represent 
l)old,  rocky,  precipitous  bluffs,  and  tho  lighter  Hliudes  or  hach- 
ures  represent  more  gradual  slopes;  tho  small  stars  are  con- 
ventional signs  for  representation  of  cone-bearing  trees  an«l 
the  other  sigi  s  for  deciduous  trees;  the  straight,  unbroken 
sho'v;-line,  dotted  along  its  edge,  represents  >and-beach ; 
tl  .  bold  headland  on  tho  northwestern  part  of  this  sketch,  is, 
^t  ]i\^M  tide,  an  elevated  island,  with  rocky  and  bluff  shores; 
tlie  first  small  dotted  lino  outside  of  the  shore-line  represents 
the  mean  low-water  mark. 

Qiies.  9. — Will  you  state  any  particular  opportunities  you 
had  for  knowing  the  character  of  this  point? 

Ans. — I  was  there  in  tho  neighborhood  of  four  months,  from 
some  time  in  June  to  some  time  in  October,  and  the  minute- 
ness of  my  survey  necessitated  a  personal  inspection  of  the 
entire  ground. 

Qufis.  10. — Will  you  now  describe  the  character  of  the  cape  'i 

Ans. — The  shore-line,  with  tho  exception  of  that  portion 
formed  by  sand-beaches,  consists  of  bold,  abrupt,  basalt-rock, 
presenting,  in  some  places,  almost  a  perpendicular  face  to  the 
sea;  a  sharp,  high  ridge,  extending  along  the  southern  and 
western  shores,  from  which  the  land  slopes  irregularly  to  the 
east  and  north ;  the  ground  for  tho  most  part  is  densely 
wooded,  and  not  at  all  available  for  agricultural  purposes  ; 
there  are  one  or  two  small  patches,  none  of  them  of  a  greater 
area  than  an  acre,  which  could  bo  made  available  as  truck- 
gardens. 

Qiies.  11. — Were  there  any  inhabitated  buildings  or  ruins 
of  buildings  within  tho  limits  of  your  survey  ? 

Ans. — £  saw  none  whatever. 

Ques.  12. — Was  there  any  cultivated  ground  within  the 
limits  of  your  survey  ? 

Ans. — No. 

Ques.  13. — What  would  you  estimate  to  be  the  value  of  the 
land  embraced  in  your  survey  ? 

Ans. — I  would  not  have  given  the  Government  price  for  it 


i! 


1    '!.„,,„  ^-.. 


314 

and  paid  taxes.  I  can  conceive  of  it  having  no  value  except 
for  the  timber,  of  which  there  was  an  abundance  in  this  whole 
region  much  more  accessible. 

Ques.  14. — Whether  or  no  your  party  made  any  examina- 
tion with  a  view  to  locating  a  light-house  on  this  cape? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  we  did. 

Ques.  15. — Where  did  you  locate  it  ? 

Ans. — On  the  highest  point  of  the  cape,  nearest  its  south- 
ern extremity. 

Ques.  16. — How  much  land  would  be  needed  for  the  light- 
house you  located  ? 

Ans. — About  from  three  and  a  half  to  four  acres,  extendino; 
across  the  cape  from  the  selected  position,  to  include  the  first 
cove  in  the  height  of  the  cape. 

Ques.  17. — What  would  be  the  value  of  this  land  for  public 
purposes  ? 

Ajis. — About  the  Government  price. 

Ques.  18. — Whether  or  no  you  knew  or  heard  of  any  occu- 
pation of  this  cape  at  the  time  you  were  there  by  any  officers 
or  servants  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — I  did  not. 

(The  portion  of  question  18,  asking  if  the  witness  heard,  ob- 
jected to.) 

Ques.  19. — Whether  or  not  you  knew  of  a  house  on  this  cape 
occupied  by  a  man  by  the  name  of  Kipling? 

Ans. — My  memory  is  not  clear  as  to  names;  but  I  did  knoAv 
of  and  visited  a  house  a  few  times  on  the  inner  shore  north  of 
the  limits  of  my  survey,  occupied  by,  I  believe,  a  half-breed, 
whom  I  also  employed  on  one  or  tv/o  occasions  to  take  me  across 
to  i'oint  Adams.  I  think  he  mentioned  having  been  once  in 
the  employ  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company ;  but  I  am  pretty 
clear  in  my  recollection  that  he  intimated,  if  he  did  not  dis- 
tinctly assert,  that  he  was  now  trading  for  himself.  I  knoAV 
I  made  purchases  of  him,  for  the  Indi?,ns  which  I  employ,  and 
for  my  own  men,  of  tobacco,  and,  at  the  time,  I  wa'^i  clearly 
under  the  impression  that  it  was  on  his  own  account.  As  I 
remember,  his  house  was  a  log-house.  My  recollection  as  to 
the  size  of  the  house  is  crude,  but  I  should  say  it  was  about 


315 

forty  foet  by  twenty  feet;  it  was  one  story  high.  I  should 
say  the  house  was  worth  then  considerably  less  than  one  thou- 
sand dollars. 

(Interrogatory  19  objected  to  as  incompetent,  and  all  the 
ansAver  thereto,  and  especially  the  statement  purporting  to  be 
made  by  a  half-breed.) 

Ques.  20. — Whether  or  no  there  was  any  cultivated  ground 
around  this  house? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember. 

Ques.  21. — What  was  the  character  of  the  entrance  of  the 
Columbia  river  ? 

Ans. — It  is  very  difficult  of  entrance,  and  at  times  impossi- 
ble. It  is  not,  or  was  not  at  that  time,  ever  entered  at  night. 
I  have  seen  a  continuous  line  of  breakers  from  Cape  Disap- 
pointment extending  across  to  Point  Adams.  Tlie  ])ar  is  con- 
tinually shifting.  I  surveyed  Sand  Island,  lying  between  the 
two  points  of  the  entrance,  and  know  that  it  is  continually 
changing  in  position  and  configuration. 

Ques.  22. — What,  in  your  judgment,  would  be  the  import- 
ance of  [a]  light  in  Cape  Disappointment  ? 

Ans. — Merely  as  a  mark  to  hold  your  position.  It  is  use- 
less to  enter  by,  without  a  range  on  the  shore  of  IJaker's  Bay ; 
and  the  north  channel,  for  which  it  would  be  available,  is 
rarely  used,  and  never  at  night. 

Adjourned  to  May  7. 

Gross- Examination  hy  Counsel  for  Company. 


(If  this  map  is  proposed  to  '  e  introduced  in  the  trial  of  the 
case,  or  if  it  has  been  introduced  in  any  deposition,  or  the  in- 
troduction of  it,  either  us  annexed  to  this  deposition  or  any 
other  in  which  it  is  mentioned,  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

(All  the  testimony  in  legard  to  the  bar  in  tlie  mouth  of  the 
Columbia  river  object**,^  to.) 

Ques.  "..  Are  you  certain  of  the  length  of  the  land  sur- 
veyed by  you?  If  so,  state  its  greatest  length,  and  in  what 
direction. 

Ans. — About  a  mile  long,  and  in  a  northwesterly  direction. 


I 


il 


p  : 

JS'EI        '     i 


^i|i'!  ■ 


m  *i 


'<i  il 


!J« 


If 


m^. 


m 


316 

Ques.  2. — What  was  the  width  of  this  land  you  suvveyed  from 
the  Ocean  to  the  shores  of  Baker's  Bay,  if  you  did  survey  it? 

Ans. — Approximately,  a  third  of  a  mile,  average  width. 

Ques.  3. — Standing  on  Cape  Disappointment,  and  looking 
towards  Baker's  Bay,  or  inward  towards  the  land,  is  there  not 
low  ground  within  the  portion  of  land  you  surveyed? 

Ans. — Yes ;  but  compared  with  the  whole  area,  very  little. 

Ques.  4. — Were  you  living  upon  the  shore  at  the  time  you 
made  this  survey? 

Ans. — Yes  ;  encamped  upon  the  shore. 

Ques.  5, — State  where  your  camp  was  located;  and,  if  you 
can  do  so,  point  to  it  on  the  map. 

A?is. — On  the  first  bight,  after  rounding  the  southeastern 
point  of  the  cape  called  Cape  Bluff,  and  directly  under  the 
inner  or  western  slope  of  the  bluff. 

Ques.  6. — I  see  noticed  here  Pacific  City  on  the  map;  how 
far  was  this  location  from  the  extremity  of  your  survey? 

Ans. — About  a  quarter  of  a  mile. 

Ques.  T. — Were  there  any  houses  between  the  place  called 
Pacific  City  and  your  survey  ? 

Ans. — One. 

Ques.  8. — How  far  was  that  house  from  the  line  of  your 
survey  ? 

Ans. — That  I  could  not  say  exactly. 

Ques.  9. — When  the  north  channel  came  into  general  use, 
would  not  the  light-house  on  Cape  Disappointment  be  of  great 
value  to  navigators? 

Ans. — It  might  be  of  some  v.alue,  but  not  much  Avithout  a 
range  on  the  shore  of  Baker's  Bay ;  and,  from  my  recollection 
of  the  topography  there,  I  say  this  would  be  impracticable, 
from  the  fact  that  the  ground  along  the  shores  of  the  bay  is 
lower  than,  and  would  be  covered  or  hidden  by  Cape  Disap- 
pointment. 

Ques.  10. — Is  it,  then,  your  opinion  that  the  only  point  of 
land  available  for  a  light-house  at  the  usually  navi^^ated  chan- 
nel of  a  great  river,  the  only  outlet  to  the  commerce  of  a 
numerous  population,  is  of  little  value? 


317 


Ans. — I  don't  regard  Cape  Hancock  or  Disappointment  as 
the  only  available  point  for  a  light-house.  Indeed,  I  have 
serious  doubts  whether  that  is  the  point  where  a  light-house 
should  be  erected  at  all. 

Ques,  11. — State  where,  in  your  opinion,  a  light-house  could 
be  erected  for  the  benefit  of  those  navigating  the  North  chan- 
nel, at  the  entrance  of  the  Columbia  river,  could  be  located 
other  than  on  the  land  you  have  stated  that  you  have  sur- 
veyed ? 

Ahs. — To  answer  that  question  exactly  would  require  an 
examination  for  that  special  purpose.  When  I  was  there  the 
North  channel  was  not  used  at  all ;  whatever  vessels  came  in 
and  went  out,  during  the  period  of  our  stay  there,  did  so 
r'u'ough  the  South  channel;  and  it  appeared  to  me  then,  as 
,  Iocs  now,  that  Point  Adams  should  have  been  selected  as 
the  one  for  the  location  of  the  light-house,  from  which  ranges 
could  readily  be  obtained.  I  looked  upon  the  light  upon  Cape 
Disappointment  merely  as  a  means  of  holding  your  position 
off  the  mouth  of  the  river. 

Ques.  12. — Is  not  your  preference  for  a  light-house  at  Point 
Adams  caused  by  the  fact,  as  you  state,  that  when  you  were 
there  the  South  channel  was  the  one  used  by  vessels  enter- 
ing the  river? 

Ans. — Partially ;  but  I  still  see  the  objection  which  I  have 
heretofore  stated  in  the  matter  of  ranges  at  Cape  Disappoint- 
ment. 

Qut--    )■'■   -Are  you  acquainted  with  the  cost  of  erectin<T 
buili'  n^.'-*  ;>{,  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river,  or  thereabouts 
or  do  you  iaiow  of  the  sales  of  any  buildings  there? 

Ans. — I  uu  form  an  approximate  estimate  of  the  cost  of 
buildinjjo  of  the  character  of  that  of  which  I  have  testified. 
i  knew  of  the  sale  of  no  buildings  while  I  was  there. 

Ques.  14. — Do  you  know  anything  of  the  cost  of  skilled 
labor,  or  value  of  material,  or  the  cost  of  transportation  ? 

A:'s. — I  can  form  a  tolerably  close  estimate  with  regard  to 
a  bu    -ing  of  the  character  of  the  one  which  I  saw  there. 

Q"r-.  '5. — Do  you,  personally,  know  anything  of  the  use 


318 

made  of  the  channels,  at  the  entrance  of  the  Oolumljia  river, 
''ince  the  time  you  left  there  ? 
Ana. — I  do  not. 

A.  :>[.  IlAiinrsoN, 
Ass't  U.  S.  Coad  Survey. 


f'!i  ! 


w& 


I!  >: 


im 


United  States  of  America,      \ 
Eastern  District  of  Pcnnsijlvania.  j 

I,  Charles  Sergeant,  United  Sta'cs  Commissioner,  duly 
appointed  and  conn  lissioned  by  the  Circuit  Court  of  the 
United  States  in  and  .(  ■  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania, 

do  hereby  certify  that  U.  loregoing  deposition  of  Alexander 
M.  Harrison  was  taken  and  reduced  to  writing  by  mc,  in  the 
presence  of  said  witness,  from  his  statements  on  the  sixth  and 
seventh  days  of  May,  1867,  at  my  oflicc,  No.  123  South  Fifth 
street,  Philadelphia,  in  pursuance  of  a  verbal  agreement  made 
in  my  presence  by  C.  C.  Beaman,  Esq.,  as  counsel  for  the 
United  States,  and  Edword  l^ander,  Esq.,  counsel  for  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

I  further  certify  that  to  said  witness,  before  his  examina- 
tion, I  administered  the  following  oath: 

"  You  do  swear  that  the  evidence  you  arc  about  to  give  in 
the  matter  of  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  ]iay  Company  against 
the  United  States  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God." 

I  further  certify  that  the  said  deposition  was  by  me  care- 
fully read  to  said  witness,  and  then  signed  by  him  in  my 
presence. 

I  do  further  certify  that  the  paper,  hereto  annexed,  and 
marked  "A,"  is  the  one  referred  to  in  the  testimony  of  Alex- 
ander M.  Harrison. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set   my  hand  and 
official  seal,  at  my  office  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
l-^-  ^'-l      this  seventh  day  of  May,  1867. 

ClIAULES    SeR(!EANT, 

U.  *S'.  Commissioner. 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION 


ON   THE 


HUDSON'S   BAY   AND   PUGET'S   SOUND  AGRICUL- 
TURAL  COMPANIES'   CLAIMS. 


}  cxamiua- 


In  the  matter  of  the   Claim  of  the  Hudson  s  Bay  Company 
against  the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  Alexander  Gardner,  taken  at  the  request  and 
in  behalf  of  tho  United  States,  by  agreement  between  C. 
C.  B^anian,  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  and  Edward 
Lander,  on  behalf  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Testimony  of  Alexander  Gardner. 

♦ 
Alexander  Gardner  being  duly  sworn,  deposeth  and  says : 

Int.  1. — State  your  name,  residence,  and  occupation. 

Ans. — My  name  is  Alexander  Gardner,  my  residence  Wash- 
ington city,  D.  C.,  and  my  occupation  photographer. 

Int.  2. — Please  to  state  whether  the  photograph  exhibited 
to  you  and  identified  by  your  signature  at  the  bottom,  "Alex- 
ander Gardner,  No.  1,"  was  or  not  prepared  at  your  establish- 
ment, and  under  your  direction. 

Ans. — It  was. 

Int.  3. — At  whose  request  did  you  do  this  ? 

Ans. — At  the  request  of  George  Gibbs,  Esq.,  Secretary  of 
the  British  and  American  Joint  Commission. 

Int.  4. — Please  to  state  from  what  original,  if  any,  that 
photograph  was  copied. 

Ans. — It  was  copied  from  another  photograph  placed  in  my 
hands  for  that  purpose  by  Mr.  Gibbs,  having  inscribed  on  it, 
at  its  lower  corner,  the  words  following :  "  Roman  Catholic 
21  H 


I  M 


s:'):™  ,.■!': 


320 

Mission  on  left  bank  of  Kootenay  river."  (Mr.  Lander  ob- 
jects to  the  foregoing  testimony.) 

Int.  5. — Please  to  state  whetlier  another  photograph,  now 
presented  to  you,  and  which  is  identified  by  containing  on  it 
the  printed  inscriptions,  "  Alo'r  Gardner,  Photographer,  511 
Seventh  street,  Washington,"  was  or  was  not  taken  at  your 
establishment,  and  if  so,  at  whose  request. 

Ans. — It  was  at  Mr.  Gibbs's  request. 

Int.  G. — Please  to  state,  if  any,  from  what  original  that  pho- 
tograph was  copied. 

Ans. — It  was  copied  from  another  photograph  placed  in  my 
hands  for  that  purpose  by  Mr.  Gibbs,  having  inscribed  on  its 
lower  corner  the  words  following:  "  H.  B.  C,  Fort  Colvile." 

Int.  7. — State  whether  or  not  the  two  copy  photographs 
made  in  your  office  as  above  described  are  true  and  correct 
representations  of  the  original  photographs  placed  in  your 
hands  for  that  purpose  by  Mr.  Gibbs. 

An8. — They  are. 

Cross- Examination. 


m\ 


%>i. ; 


t  ■,11 


Int.  1. — By  whom  were  these  copies  made? 

Ans. — One  of  two  men,  Mr.  Sullivan  or  Mr.  Knox ;  I  do 
not  remember  which. 

Int.  2. — What  part  of  the  copying  of  this  photograph  was 
done  in  your  presence? 

Ans. — The  whole  of  it.     I  saw  it  focused,  I  saw  it  exposed 

in  the  camera,  and  I  saw  it  developed. 

Alex.  Gardner. 
January/  30,  1867. 


i  :)i:. 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim   of  the  Hudmn's  Bay  Company 
against  the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  Charles  T.  Gardner,  taken  at  the  request  and 
in  behalf  of  the  United  States,  by  agreement  between  C. 
C.  Beaman,  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  and  Edward 
Lander,  on  behalf  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 


321 


mder  ob- 

aph,  now 
ling  on  it 
pher,  511 
\  at  your 


that  pho- 
ned in  my 
ed  on  its 
:)olvile." 
)tograph3 
d  correct 
in  your 


ox ;  I  do 
raph  was 
;  exposed 

RDNER. 


Oompant/ 

^uest  and 
itween  C. 
1  Edward 
*ny. 


Testimony  of  Giiarles  T.  Gardner. 

Charles  T,  Gardner  being  duly  sworn,  deposeth  as  follows : 

Int.  1. — Please  to  state  your  name  at  length,  and  your  pres- 
ent residence. 

An». — Charles  T.  Gardner,  Washington  city,  D.  0. 

Int.  2. — Were  you  or  not  in  Oregon  at  or  about  the  year 
1853,  and  at  different  times  since  then? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  3. — What  was  your  profession  at  the  time  of  your  first 
residence  in  Ore;;on  ? 

Ans.  -Civil  engineer  and  surveyoi^ 

hit.  4. — Whether  or  not  were  you  employed  in  the  survey 
of  the  Northwestern  boundary  ? 

Ans. — I  was.  It  was  in  the  winter  of  1858  and  1859,  and 
I  remained  in  this  employment  until  1861. 

Int.  5. — State  whether  or  not  you  have  since  served  in  the 
army  of  the  United  States. 

Ans. — I  have. 

Int.  6. — What  is  your  present  employment  or  occupation? 

Ans. — Clerk  in  the  Third  Auditor's  oflSce  of  the  Treasury. 

Int.  7. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany post  at  Umpqua,  and  if  so,  at  and  for  what  time? 

Ans. — In  1854  I  subdivided  the  townships  around  Umpqua 
and  from  there  to  Scottsburg,  on  the  Umpqua  river.  This 
subdivision  passed  through  a  tract  of  land  claimed  by  Colonel 
Chapman. 

hit.  8. — What  w^as  the  name  of  the  place  at  which  Colonel 
Chapman's  claim  wa    situated? 

Arts. — Fort  Umpqua. 

Int.  9. — Describe  what  buildings,  if  any,  existed  at  that 
time  at  Fort  Umpqua. 

Ans. — As  far  as  my  recollection  serves,  there  were  the 
remains  of  a  log  house. 
Int.  10. — What  person,  if  any,  was  residing  in  that  house? 
Ans. — No  one,  to  my  knowledge. 

Int.  11. — On  which  side  of  the  river  is  Fort  Umpqua,  rela- 
tively to  the  road  to  California? 


Iill  ,1 1 


if; 


M\ 


■■f]\';. 


'^l,-' 


322 

Ans. — On  tlio  opposite  side. 

Int.  12. — State  whether  there  was  any  corral  containing 
Cattle  at  Fort  Umpqua. 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Int.  12. — How  far  is  Fort  Umpqua  from  Scottsburg,  in  your 
estimation? 

Ans. — About  twenty  miles. 

Int.  14. — How  near  to  the  river  is  the  fort? 

Ans. — About  one  hundred  and  fifty  yards. 

Int.  15. — State  whether  or  not  Colonel  Chapman  occupied 
the  farm  at  Fort  Umpqua? 

Ans. — He  <lid. 

Int.  IG.  What  was  the  quality  of  the  land  at  and  about  Fort 
Umpqua? 

Ans. — First  rate,  according  to  our  definition  in  tlie  survey. 
Where  the  Fort  was  and  Colonel  Chapman's  house  was,  was  a 
plain,  the  half  section  run  into  the  mountain. 

Int.  17. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  cattle  belonging  to 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  that  region? 

Ans. — I  have  none. 

Int.  18. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  post 
at  Champoog? 

Ans. — I    ;ive  stopped  there;  I  think  in  1854. 

Int.  19. — What  building  or  other  improvements  did  the  post 
consist  of? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember. 

Int.  20. — Have  you  knowledge  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany post  at  Kootenay? 

Ans. — I  liave  been  there,  in  1860,  whilst  employed  on  the 
boundary  survey. 

Int.  21. — PlL*a?e,  if  you  recollect,  state  what  improvements 
there  were  at  that  post. 

Ans. — There  was  a  log  house  in  a  dilapidated  condition, 
and  a  shed,  apparently.  I  don't  think  there  was  any  fence 
around.  Saw  land  there  that  had  been  cultivated,  but  was 
ngt  then  in  cultivation. 

Int.  22. — What  was  the  extent  of  the  land  which  seemed 
once  to  have  been  cultivated? 


$28 

Ans.-^I  can't  say.     I  should  think  not  more  than  forty 
acres. 

Int.  23. — What  was  the  qua*lity  of  the  land? 

Ans. — Good. 

Int.  24. — Were  any  persons  apparently  in  charge  of  the  post? 

Ans. — No  one. 

Int.  25.— Have  you  knowledge  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany Post  at  Fort  Colvile?     And  if  so,  at  what  time? 

^^8.— Yes,  in  1859-60-61. 

Int.  26.— Please  to  describe  the  improvements  at  Fort  Col- 
vile. 

•  jins. — Fort  Colvile  was  a  pallisade  enclosure  with  towers  at 
each  corner,  built  of  logs.  There  were  two  storehouses  with 
furs.  In  each  one  they  had  a  store  where  they  sold  goods  to  the 
Indians.  Outside  of  the  Fort  was  Angus  McDonald's  house; 
he  was  chief  trader.  There  were  two  or  three  houses  that 
joined  his. 

jfil^  27. — Was  there  any  enclosed  or  cultivated  land  at  or 

near  Fort  Colvile? 

Ans. — There  was  some ;  I  don't  think  it  belonged  to  Mr. 
McDonald.  It  was  about  three-quarters  of  a  mile  from  the 
post.  Don't  remember  the  quantity  of  enclosed  or  cultivated 
land. 

Int.  28. — State  whether  or  not  you  have  recollection  of  a 
Catholic  Mission  House  at  Kootenay. 

Ans. — I  have  none. 

CrosaSxamination. 


jnt.  1. — How  near  to  the  remains  of  a  log  house  at  Umpqua 
was  the  house  of  Colonel  Chapman  ? 

Ans. — I  should  judge  about  150  yards. 

Int.  2. — Were  there  any  remains  of  a  stockade  where  yott 
noticed  the  remains  of  a  log  house  ? 

Ans. — There  were  signs  of  a  stockade  having  been  there. 

Int.  3. — Could  you  tell,  from  the  remains  you  saw  thercj 
whether  that  had  been  a  log  house  or  a  barn  ? 

Ans. — I  thought  it  had  been  a  log  house. 


w 

W 

1  'i   1 

i'i: 

r 

324 


il''l 


ir  ! 


Int.  4. — Were  there  not  remains  of  some  five  buildings  at 
the  place  where  you  noticed  the  stockade? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember. 

Int.  5. — How  many  buildings  were  there  on  this  place  of 
Colonel  Chapman's  at  the  time  you  saw  it? 

Ans. — His  house,  a  small  house  whore  the  Indians  lived, 
and  his  barn. 

Int.  6. — In  making  out  your  notes  of  the  land  surveyed  by 
you  as  deputy  surveyor  of  the  United  States,  are  you  not  re- 
quired to  divide  the  lands  surveyed  into  classes  of  diflFerent 
quality,  such  as  first  rate,  second  rate,  &c.  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Int.  7. — Do  you  not  place  in  the  class  denominated  first 
rate  the  best  and  richest  lands  you  surveyed? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  8. — Do  you  mean  by  the  word  first  rate,  in  speaking  of 
the  Umpqua  land,  the  first-class  lands  of  your  surveys  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  among  the  first-class  lands. 

Int.  9. — How  does  the  land  at  the  place  you  call  Kootenay 
compare  with  the  land  at  Umpqua? 

Ans — Not  near  so  good.     It  is  sandy,  but  good  land. 

Int.  10. — Was  there  anything  at  the  place  you  call  Kootenay 
to  designate  it  as  a  post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — Nothing. 

Int.  11. — Have  you  any  personal  knowledge  that  this  was 
a  post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — I  was  told  so. 

Int.  12. — How  long  were  you  at  Fort  Colvile  ? 

Ans. — Been  there  several  times;  stopped  a  day  or  two  at  a 
time;  always  there  during  the  winter. 

Int.  13. — Did  not  the  snow  cover  the  ground  at  the  time  of 
your  visits  there? 

Ans. — It  did. 

Int.  14. — Did  you  visit  the  barns  or  the  mills  of  the  Com- 
pany while  you  were  at  Fort  Colvile? 

Ans. — No. 


325 

Jte-Examination  in  Chief. 

Itit.  1. — Whether  or  not,  among  the  persons  employed  by  or 
with  you,  the  place  you  describe  as  Kootenay  was  reputed  to 
be  the  site  of  the  post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  or  from 
what  other  persons  you  derived  knowledge  to  that  effect? 

Ans. — The  party  that  were  with  me  knew  nothing  about  it 
but  what  they  learned  from  me.  My  information  was  obtained 
from  the  maps  that  I  received  from  the  officers  of  the  survey 
to  guide  me  in  my  work. 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  this  last  answer  as  incompetent.) 

Charles  T.  Gardner. 
January/  30,  1867. 

Examination  Resumed. 

Int.  1. — Are  you  acquainted  with  a  landing  or  other  place 
in  Oregon,  occupied  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  by  the 
name  either  of  Monticello  or  Caweeman? 

Ans. — I  am. 

Int.  2. — Please  state  what  it  is. 

Ana. — On  the  west  bank  of  the  Cowlitz  river,  about  two  or 
three  miles  above  where  it  empties  into  the  Columbia  river. 

Int.  3. — Please  state  what  you  know  of  the  use  or  occupa- 
tion of  that  place  by  the  Company. 

Ans. — I  know  there  was  a  store  there.  In  this  store  were 
the  goods  usually  kept  in  a  Hudson's  Bay  store,  as  blankets, 
beads,  and  so  forth,  for  trade  with  the  Indians.  As  well  as  I 
remember,  it  was  a  long  house,  probably  thirty  feet  in  length 
by  fifteen. 

Int.  4. — Please  to  describe  the  landing  there,  whether  there 
were  any  wharves  constructed,  or  any  portion  of  the  landing 
visibly  appropriated  by  enclosure. 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  this  question.) 

Ans. — I  landed  from  a  canoe  on  the  bank  of  the  river — no 
wharf  or  any  constructed  landing. 

Int.  5. — Was  there  any  plank  path  or  any  other  accommo- 
dations for  facilitating  the  landing  of  persons  or  goods  at  that 
place? 


1    ! 


326 

A)iH. — Thoro  was  no  plank  there.  There  was  a  foot-trail  on 
the  bank. 

Int.  G. — Was  there  any  person  in  occupation  of  the  store  of 
the  Company  at  that  time? 

Ans. — Yes,  there  was. 

Int.  7. — Did  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  or  any  agent  of 
theirs,  demand  tolls  or  compensation  from  you  for  the  accom- 
modation of  beaching  your  canoe  at  th  )  landing  and  availing 
yourself  of  the  foot-trail  after  you  landed? 

Ana. — No. 

Cro88-Uxaminatmi. 

Int.  1. — IIoAV  do  you  know  that  the  store  you  mention  as 
belonging  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  was  actually  the 
store  of  the  Company? 

Ans. — I  was  introduced  to  the  gentleman  who  had  charge 
of  the  store  as  one  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  men. 

Int.  2. — What  was  his  name? 

Ans. — I  have  forgotten. 

Int.  3. — Was  this  store  situated  on  the  bank  of  the  river,  or 
on  the  west  side  of  the  little  street  running  by  the  landing? 

Ans. — I  think  on  the  bank  of  the  river. 

In',  4. — Who  was  the  person  who  at  that  time  claimed  to 
posses '  the  landing  and  the  land  immediately  around  it,  who 
did  pr.'i ctically  control  it? 

Ana. — Mr.  Huntington. 

Int.  5. — At  the  time  you  were  there,  were  there  not  some 
piles  driven  along  the  bank  to  prevent  its  being  washed  away 
by  the  current  of  the  river? 

Ana. — None  that  I  noticed. 

Chas.  T.  Gardner. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  30,  1867. 


327 


Claim  of  the  Hudson  8  Bay  Company  af/ainst  the  United  States, 

Deposition  of  Simpson  P.  Moses,  taken  at  the  request  and  in 
lehalf  of  the  United  States,  by  agreement  between  C.  C. 
Beainan  on  behalf  of  ^hc  United  States,  and  Edward 
Lander  on  behalf  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Testimony  of  Simpson  P.  Mosks. 

Int.  1. — Are  you  the  same  person  examined  as  a  witness 
this  day  in  the  matter  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany's claim  against  the  United  States? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  2. — State  whether  or  no  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
imported  any  merchandise  into  your  collection  district,  when 
you  were  United  States  collector  of  customs  for  the  district  of 
Puget's  Sound? 

Ans. — They  did,  paying  duties  amounting  in  the  aggregate 
to  about  $5,000. 

Int.  3. — Where  were  these  goods  sold? 

Ans. — At  Fort  Nisqually. 

Int.  4. — Who  was  the  agent  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
in  these  matters? 

Ans. — Dr.  Tolmie.  The  imports  of  merchandise  were  con- 
signed to  him.  He  was  also  an  officer  of  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company  in  charge  of  the  post. 

Int.  5. — How  was  the  value  of  the  Company's  interests 
affected  by  being  required  to  pay  duties  on  their  imports 
through  your  district? 

Ans. — Dr.  Tolmie  represented  to  me  that  their  interests  had 
suffered  seriously  thereby,  and  that  they  would  in  future  im- 
port their  goods  at  Vancouver,  on  the  Columbia  river,  and 
bring  them  across  <he  country. 

Int.  6. — State  whether  or  no  you  ever  visited  Fort  Van- 
couver, on  the  Columbia  river. 

(Statements  of  Dr.  Tolmie  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Ans. — I  was  at  Fort  Vancouver  on  two  occasions — in  the 
winter  of  1852-3,  and  the  spring  of  1853. 


328 

V 

Int.  7. — State  whether  you  had  any  conversation  with  Gov- 
ernor Ballenden,  chief  factor  in  charge  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company's  post  at  Vancouver,  in  regard  to  their  right  to  im- 
port merchandise  into  the  Columbia  river. 

Ans. — I  had  a  general  conversation  with  him  on  the  subject, 
in  which  he  contended  the  treaty  gave  the  Company  the  right 
of  importation  free  of  duties. 

(Statement  of  Ballenden  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Int.  8. — Was  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  permitted  to  in- 
troduce goods  into  the  Columbia  river  free  of  duty  or  not? 

Ans. — The  Company  was  required  to  pay  duty. 

Int.  1). — State  whether  or  not  you  had  any  conversation 
with  Governor  Ballenden  in  regard  to  the  value  to  the  Com- 
pany of  tiie  navigation  of  the  Columbia  river  under  the  treaty, 
if  the  Company  was  compelled  to  pay  duties. 

Ans. — Governor  Ballenden  remarked  to  me  that  the  require- 
ments of  our  revenue  system,  as  practised  at  the  custom-houses 
in  that  country,  were  such  as  to  ren<ler  that  right  of  no  value 
to  them,  and  that  the  Company  had  determined  to  discontinue 
the  use  of  the  north  branch  of  the  river,  and  that  the  Com- 
pany was  then  constructing,  or  about  to  construct,  a  road 
from  a  point  on  the  Pacific,  within  the  British  territory, 
striking  inland,  so  as  to  supply  their  posts  independent  of  the 
annoyance  of  the  American  custom-houses. 

(Statement  of  Ballenden  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Fehruary  7, 1867.  '  ^^^^'^^  ^'  ^^"'^^- 

In  the  matter  of  the   Claim  of  the  Iluasop'n  Bay  Company 
against  the  United  States. 

Before  me  personally  came  Simpson  P.  Moses,  to  whom  I 
administered  the  following  oath  : 

"You  swear  that  the  evidence  you  shall  give  in  the  matter 
of  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  United 
States  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but 
the  truth.     So  help  you  God." 

Witness  my  hand  this  seventh  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1867. 

SAM'L  H.  HUNTINGTON, 

Chief  Clerk  Court  of  Claims. 


Tmmit^^n  »'.  i  vi". 


■TO"A 


329 


In  the  matter  of  the   Claim  of  the  Hudson  s  Ba?/  Company 
against  the  United  States, 

Cross-Examination  op  Simpson  P.  Mopes. 


Int.  1. — How  do  you  know  that  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
were  required  to  pay  duties  at  the  Columbia  river,  and  did 
vour  collection  district  extend  to  the  Columbia  river? 

Ans. — My  district  did  not  extend  to  the  Columbia  river, 
and  I  only  knew  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  paid  duties  there 
from  the  statement  of  the  officers  of  the  customs  there  on  the 
river,  and  from  the  statement  of  the  officers  of  the  Company, 
and  also  because  it  was  a  matter  of  notoriety  which  was  never 
controverted. 

Lit.  2. — Did  not  Dr.  Tolmie  complain  of  your  interpretation 
of  'he  revenue  laws  in  your  collection  district,  and  was  not 
that  one  of  the  reasons  given  for  importing  goods  into  the 
Columbia  district,  and  subjecting  them  to  the  very  great 
additional  cost  of  land  transportation  from  the  river  to  the 
post  at  I^isqually  ? 

Ans. — Dr.  Tolmie  did  so  complain,  as  he  had  previously 
complained  in  like  manner  of  the  interpretation  at  Astoria. 
At  the  time  when  he  complained  of  interpretation  he  paid  the 
il'jties  under  written  protest,  which  protest  I  forwarded  to  the 
Treasury  Department,  and  my  interpretation  was  sustained, 
of  which  fact  I  notified  Dr.  Tolmie. 

Int.  3. — V  hat  reason  did  Dr.  Tolmie  give  you  for  adding 
so  greatly  to  the  cost  of  his  goods  by  importing  them  by  the 
way  of  the  Columbia  river? 

Ans. — He  gave  me  only  a  general  reason,  that  the  Company 
thought  it  would  be  to  their  advantage  to  do  so,  and  tiiat  they 
had  so  determined. 

Int.  4. — At  what  time  did  you  have  this  conversation  you 
have  spoken  of  with  Mr.  Ballenden? 

Ans. — It  was  November  or  December,  1852,  to  the  best  of 
my  recollection. 

Int.  5. — Did  not  Mr.  Ballenden  in  this  conversation  tell 


830 

you  that  the  custom-house  authorities  interfered  with  their 
navigation  of  the  river  above  Astoria? 

Ans. — He  said  that  the  annoyances  that  the  Company  had 
to  Submit  to  from  the  American  custom-house  authorities  were 
such  as  to  render  the  Company's  right  under  the  treaty  to  the 
use  of  the  river  of  no  value  to  them. 

InL  6. — Did  he  say  anything  to  you  about  the  threats  to 
seize  a  vessel  of  the  Company  engaged  in  navigating  the  river 
above  Astoria  ? 

Ans. — No  ;  he  said  nothing  of  that  sort. 

Simpson  P.  Moses. 


Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  the  Hon.  William  (tILPIN,  taken  at  the  request 
and  in  behalf  of  the  United  States,  by  agreement  between 
C.  C.  Beaman,  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  and  Ed- 
ward Lander,  on  behalf  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Testimony  of  Hon.  William  Gilpin. 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  residence,  and  present  occu- 
pation? 

Ans. — William  Gilpin,  Denver,  Colorado.  I  am  now  Gov- 
ernor-elect of  the  State  of  Colorado. 

Int.  2. — Under  what  circumstances  and  with  what  purpose 
did  you  cross  the  Plains  in  1843? 

Ans. — I  made  the  journey  from  St.  Louis  to  the  mouth  of 
the  Columbia  for  the  purpose  of  personal  and  individual  exam- 
ination and  information. 

Int.  3. — What  particular  education  or  opportunities  have 
you  had  which  would  enable  you  to  judge  and  estimate  the 
value  of  lands  in  new  settlements,  or  the  cost  of  erecting  build- 
ings in  such  settlements? 

Ans. — Preliminary  training  at  the  Military  Academy  at 
West  Point,  service  in  the  army,  and  residence  on  the  frontier 
from  the  age  of  16.  I  have  traversed  the  interior  of  the 
continent  a  great  deal  in  military  expeditions  and  otherwise. 


331 


Tni.  4. — State  whether  you  ever  visited  Fort  Hall,  a  station 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Ans. — I  visited  and  remained  several  days  at  Fort  Hall, 
going  out  to  the  Pacific  sea,  in  September,  1843,  and  returned 
from  the  Pacific  in  June,  1844,  remaining  at  this  time  several 
weeks  at  the  fort. 

Int.  5. — Describe  the  station  of  Fort  Hall. 

Ans. — Fort  Hall  was  a  small  quadrangular  trading-post, 
about  100  feet  square,  constructed  of  adobe  and  logs — log 
cabins. 

Int.  G. — What  would  you  estimate  tho  cost  and  value  of  this 
station,  with  the  buildings? 

Ans. — As  I  saw  the  buildings,  they  were  of  little  value  as 
structures,  and  designed  for  mere  temporary  use,  for  the  pro- 
tection of  stores  and  trade  with  the  Indians.  I  am  able  to 
estimate  the  value  of  this  class  of  buiidijigs,  as  I  have  built 
such  buildings,  and  I  once  was  in  treaty  to  purchase  Bent's 
Fort,  on  the  Upper  Arkansas,  and  know  what  value  was  put 
upon  it.  Fort  Hall  was  bought  by  the  Company  from  Mr. 
Wyeth.  I  should  think  that  $2,000  would  be  a  generous, 
equitable  price  for  all  the  structures  I  saAV  at  Fort  Hall. 

Int.  7. — State  whether  or  no  there  were  anv  lands  enclosed 
or  cultivated,  or  occupied  and  used  for  the  pastui'a l'c  of  horses 
and  cattle,  at  Fort  Hall. 

An^. — My  recollection  is  that  there  was  no  cultivated  land 
of  any  kind  at  Fort  Hall;  no  enclosures,  except  small,  tem- 
porary corrals,  with  poles.  My  recollection  is  that  there  were 
about  300  or  350  head  of  stock,  under  the  charge  of  the  per- 
sons at  the  fort.  These  were  herded,  and  grazed  at  large  over 
the  surrounding  domain.  I  know  of  no  lands  enclosed  or 
reclaimed  for  permanent  use  from  year  to  year,  except  the 
fort. 

Int.  8. — How  many  men  stationed  at  Fort  Hall? 

Ans. — About  11. 

Int.  9. — What  was  the  condition  of  the  trade? 

Ans. — From  repeated  conversations  with  the  officers  of  the 
Company  and  American  traders,  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  amount  of  trade  there  was  uncertain  and  transient,  on 


•I 


832 

account  of  the  migratory  character  of  the  surrounding  In- 
dians. 

(Interrogatory  objected  to  as  incompetent  and  hearsay.) 
Int.  10. — Have  you  visited  any  other  stations  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company? 

Ans.—YQ%',  in  1843  and  1844,  Boise,  Walla- Walla,  Van- 
couver, Fort  George,  and  Champoeg. 

Int.  11. — When  and  how  long  were  you  at  Fort  Boise? 
Ans. — Three  or  four  days,  in  October,  1843,  and  Juno,  1844. 
Int.  12. — Describe  Fort  Boise. 

Ans. — Fort  Boise  was  in  all  particulars  similar  to  Fort 
Hall,  and  I  judge  to  have  been  a  place  of  about  equal  valuo 
with  Fort   Hall.      The  buildings  were  somewhat  better  fin- 
ished, but  of  less  valuo  as  a  trading  point.     I  think   there 
were  only  G  or  7  men  stationed  there.     Its  chief  consequence 
was  as  a  place  of  rest  and  refitment  for  the  passing  trains  of 
the  Company.     I  did  not  observe  any  lands  enclosed  or  spe- 
cially used  in  agriculture  or  pasturage.     I  should  not  put  the 
value  of  the  buildings  and  post  at  Boise  over  ^2,500  or  |^3,000. 
Int.  13. — How  long  and  when  were  you  at  Walla-Walla? 
Arts, — In  October,  1843,  some  eight  days;    in  April  and 
May,  1844,  some  twenty-five  or  thirty  days. 

Int.  14. —  What  was  the  character  of  the  post  at  Walla- 
Walla? 

Ans. — The  houses  were  well  constructed,  of  adobe.  There 
were  no  oorrals  or  out-houses  of  any  valuo  near  the  fort. 
Walla-Walla  was  the  depot  for  transportation  to  the  posts 
north,  east,  and  south  of  it,  and  for  the  purchase  of  animals 
of  transportation.  I  think  there  were  small  cultivated  fields 
of  a  few  acres  at  some  distance  from  the  fort,  on  the  Walla- 
Walla  river,  where  potatoes  were  grown.  I  think  the  Com- 
pany had  no  stock  there  other  than  horses.  The  permanent 
equipment  of  the  fort  was  very  small,  five  persons  only.  I 
should  set  down  the  moneyed  value  of  the  place  at  $8,000  or 
$9,000,  including  the  cultivated  land.  The  country  around 
Walla-Walla  was  extremely  sandy,  of  no  value  for  cultiva- 
tion, enclosure,  or  pasturage  at  that  time. 

Int.  15. — State  whether  you  had  any  conversation  with 


333 


oundinjr  In- 


fc  at  Walla- 


ution  with 


Major  Grant,  chief  trader  Hudson's  Bi  y  Company,  with  re- 
gard to  the  value  of  the  Company's  posts  and  trade  south  and 
east  of  the  Columbia  river. 

(Objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Ans. — I  had  frequent  conversation  with  him,  and  others  in 
the  service  of  the  Company,  on  this  subject.  The  general 
impression  made  on  me  by  those  conversations  was,  that  their 
presence  in  the  country  was  transient,  and  taeir  posts  held  in 
that  light,  their  connection  with  it  liable  to  csase  immediately 
on  the  termination  of  the  diplomatic  discussions  then  pend- 
ing. It  was  further  stated  that  the  intention  of  the  Company 
was  to  abandon  the  posts  south  and  east  of  the  Columbia  if 
they  could  not  sell  them  privately.  In  those  rggionsof  coun- 
try whore  the  Company  had  the  prospect  of  permanent  con- 
trol, the  Company  established  and  pursued  a  s-^t  policy  and 
discipline  calculated  to  enhance  and  enrich  the  general  busi- 
ness of  the  fur  trade;  but  on  the  contrary,  where  the  sover- 
eignty was  in  dispute,  they  were  less  careful  of  the  permanent 
and  prospective  favorable  condition  of  the  country,  and  per- 
mitted a  state  of  things  calculated  to  exhaust  it  rapidly,  and 
bring  about  the  destruction  of  the  fur-bearing  crop  of  ani- 
mals. The  Company  were  gradually  curtailing  their  opera- 
tions in  the  disputed  territory,  owing  to  diminution  of  the 
supply  of  fur-bearing  animals. 

Int.  16. — When,  and  how  long,  and  under  what  circum- 
stances did  you  visit  Fort  Vancouver? 

Ans. — My  recollection  is  that  I  visited  Vancouver  in  No- 
vember, 1843,  in  February,  1844,  and  April,  1844.  I  was 
there  about  ten  days  on  each  occasion,  and  on  the  two  last 
occasions  was  specially  the  guest  of  Governor  John  McLough- 
lin,  and  was  treated  by  him  with  the  greatest  hospitality  and 
kindness. 

Int.  17. — Describe  Fort  Vancouver. 

Ans. — The  main  establishment  consisted,  as  I  remember,  of 
some  seven  or  ten  dwelling-houses,  framed,  surrounding  a 
parade,  the  whole  enveloped  in  a  picket  enclosure.  These 
houses  were  ample  in  size,  substantial,  and  convenient  dwell- 
ings.    Outside  was  one  large  store  and  warehouses,  and  some 


Ill  !l 


lii: 


!1M 


I 


334 

distance,  some  hundred  yards  off,  was  a  small  village,  the  resi- 
dence of  the  employes  and  their  families,  consisting  of  cabins, 
neat  cabins.  Besides  these  were  shelters,  built  near  the  river 
an<l  elsewhere,  to  facilitate  the  loading  and  unloading  of  ves- 
sels and  their  cargoes ;  also  corrals,  for  stables,  and  for  hogs 
and  poultry. 

Int.  18. — What  would  you  estimate  to  have  been  the  value 
of  the  buildings  you  have  just  described,  together  Avith  a 
square  mile,  extending  half  a  mile  up  and  down  the  river  and 
a  mile  back? 

Ans. — I  should  estimate  at  a  liberal  price,  the  cost  of  put- 
ting up  the  building  $50,000,  and  for  the  land  $45,000,  the 
total  liberal  cash  value  being  $95,000. 

Int.  19. — What  do  you  know  of  the  amount  of  land  culti- 
vated, and  the  value  of  the  crops  raised  at  and  around  Van- 
couver ? 

Ans. — I  recollect  to  have  visited  a  well-conducted  and  sub- 
stantial farm  east  of  Vancouver,  six  miles  off,  well  equipped 
in  all  particulars.  My  recollection  is  that  there  were  300 
acres  of  wheat,  oats,  and  potatoes  in  constant  cultivation. 
There  were  also  a  garden  and  orchard.  I  do  not  know  of  any 
other  cultivated  lands  about  Vancouver.  I  do  not  know  the 
value  of  the  crops  raised  on  these  lands,  but  a  large  portion 
of  the  wheat  sent  to  Sitka  was  purchased  from  settlers  in  the 
valley  of  the  Willamette  and  from  California. 

Int.  20. — State  whether  you  visited  any  mills  belonging  to 
the  Company  in  the  vicinity  of  Vancouver,  and  if  so,  give  an 
estimate  of  their  cost  and  value. 

^ws.--At  the  mouth  of  a  considerable  creek,  flowing  into 
the  Columbia  from  the  north,  and  I  think  opposite  the  farm, 
I  visited  a  group  of  water-mills.  These  consisted  of  a  mill  for 
the  manufacture  of  wheat  into  flour,  good  sized  and  well 
equipped,  and  of,  I  think,  two  saw-mills.  These  saw-mills 
were  very  large  and  substantial  as  to  size  and  structure.  I 
should  estimate  the  mills  at  $60,000  or  $65,000. 

Int.  21. — State  whether  or  not  you  knew  or  heard  of  any 
map  of  any  land  claimed  by  the  Company  around  Vancouver, 
or  whether  you  heard  the  officers  of  the  Company  make  any 


I'fl  :i''i 


385 


claim   to   any  other   land   than   that   actually  occupied   by 
them. 

Ans. — I  did  not  hoar  of  or  see  any  map,  other  than  a  man- 
uscript chart  purporting  to  illustrate  the  entrance  to  and  navi- 
gation of  the  river  Columbia  as  high  as  the  Cascades,  and 
Arrowsmith's  general  map,  printed  in  London,  of  the  region 
occupied  by  the  Hudson  Bay  Company  in  North  America.  I 
understood,  from  what  I  saw  and  heard  from  the  officers  of  the 
Company,  that  the  Company  did  not  claim  any  permanent 
right  or  title  in  the  soil,  other  than  the  use  of  it,  and  the  value 
attached  to  it  in  the  prosecution  of  their  business  as  traders. 

(Statement  of  officers  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Int.  22. — What  would  you  estimate  to  have  been  the  value 
of  a  tract  of  land  extending  in  front  along  the  bank  of  the  Co- 
lumbia river  twenty-five  miles,  and  extending  back  from  said 
river  about  ten  miles,  and  excluding  the  tract  a  mile  square 
you  have  already  valued  around  the  Fort,  the  said  land  run- 
ning 17  miles  down  the  river  below  Vancouver  and  8  miles 
above. 

Ans. — I  can  form  no  estimate.  I  knew  of  no  claimed  occu- 
pancy of  such  a  tract  of  land;  it  was  then  wild  and  unoccupied 
in  all  particulars. 

Int.  23. — State,  if  you  can,  the  number  of  cattle  and  sheep 
owned  by  the  Company. 

Ans. — The  number  was  small.  Most  of  those  around  Van- 
couver and  other  posts  were,  as  I  understand,  owned  by  indi- 
viduals or  by  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  and 
kept  around  the  posts  for  better  protection. 

Inf.  24. — When  were  you  at  Champoog,  and  what  was  its 
condition? 

Ans. — I  was  there  at  various  times,  particularly  March  4th, 
1844.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  buildings  there  but  sheds. 
I  did  not  understand  that  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  any 
station  there;  my  understanding  was  that  it  was  used  merely 
as  a  landing  place. 

Int.  25. — When  were  you  at  Astoria  (Fort  George?) 

Ans. — April  1st,  1844;  three  or  four  days. 

Int.  26. — What  was  the  character  of  the  Post  ? 
22  H 


II 


In 


ii ,  .1 


fit* 


i 


ll^l  1 

1  ii 

if    1 

?-/!"  ■'  / '; 

*;i!'  .    ;|  1 

f\i:.  % 

s 


i''V"  '  r  'Id 


336 

^w«. — It  was  of  the  very  smallest  class,  consisting  of  a  single 
building;  it  was  the  point  where  vessels  anchored.  Captain 
Birnie  and  his  family,  with  one  or  two  assistants,  Avere  all 
the  persons  I  saw  there.  The  only  trade  of  the  post  was 
salted  salmon. 

Int.  27. — What  do  you  know  of  the  policy  of  the  officers  of 
the  Company  to  induce  intelligent  Americans  to  go  to  the 
Sandwich  Islands,  and  of  their  expectation  of  the  final  settle- 
ment of  the  boundary  line  between  the  United  States  and 
Sritish  America? 

Ans. — There  was  perceivable  an  earnest  desire  to  give  to 
their  own  Government  as  much  as  possible  the  benefit  of  exclu- 
sive occupancy  by  British  subjects  of  all  the  country  between 
the  Columbia  river  and  the  ocean.  The  officers  of  the  Com- 
pany were  very  liberal  and  generous  in  giving  free  passage  to 
Americans  to  the  Sandwich  Islands.  The  officers  of  the  Com- 
pany expected  and  desired  that  the  Columbia  river  should  be 
made  the  line  between  the  United  States  and  British  America. 

Int.  28. — State  Avhat  you  know  of  the  origin  of  provisional 
government  beyond  the  Rocky  Mountains. 

Am. — Provision  for  self-government  was  arranged  and 
adopted  by  the  people  at  a  mass  meeting  at  Champoeg  4th 
March,  1844,  and  I  was  appointed  the  first  delegate  to  the 
American  Congress  from  the  inhabitants  of  Oregon. 

Int.  29. — What  do  you  know  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany's post  of  Umpqua? 

Ana. — I  met  Mr.  Paul  Fraser,  an  officer  of  the  Company; 
he  gave  me  an  exact,  description  of  the  establishment  at  Ump- 
qua, leading  me  to  estimate  its  size,  value,  and  importance  as 
ranking  with  Boise  and  Fort  Hall,  and  its  desirableness  as  a 
place  of  trade  diminishing. 

William  Gilpin. 

Washington  City,  Felruary  8, 1867. 


337 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  agaimt 

the  United  States. 

Before  me  personally  came  William  Gilpin,  to  whom  I  ad- 
ministered the  following  oath: 

"  You  swear  that  the  evidence  you  shall  give  in  the  matter 
of  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  United 
shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth. 
So  help  you  God." 

Witness  my  hand  this  eighth  of  February,  A.  D.  1867. 


Sam'l  H.  Huntington, 

Chief  Clerk  Court  of  Claims. 


Cross-Examination. 

Int.  1. — You  have  estimated  Fort  Hall  on  your  recollection 
of  it;  suppose  Fort  Hall  to  have  consisted  of  the  buildings 
and  horse-yards  or  corrals  in  good  repair,  set  out  on  page  123 
of  the  testimony  in  behalf  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and 
now  shown  to  you,  what  value  would  you  put  upon  it  in  1843, 
or  at  any  time  within  three  years  preceding  or  following  that 
time? 

Ans. — In  giving  the  estimate  I  did  in  the  examination-in- 
chief,  I  had  in  my  mind  the  establishment  as  set  forth  here, 
such  being  my  distinct  recollection  of  the  fort  and  its  sur- 
roundings. 

Int.  2. — Do  you  recollect  any  adobe  horse-yard  or  corrai  at 
Fort  Hall  165  by  130  feet? 

Ans. — I  remember  having  seen  and  perhaps  used  such  cor- 
ral as  existed  at  the  time  I  was  there.  Its  construction  was 
rude  and  imperfect ;  a  portion  of  it  of  poles. 

Int.  3. — How  many  bastions  were  there  at  Fort  Hall  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  distinct  recollection  of  the  bastions.  At 
two  corners  of  the  fort  the  inhabited  building  had  attics  or 
upper  structures,  which  served  the  purposes  of  bastions  for 
defence. 

Int.  4. — Do  you  know  inything  of  the  cost  of  maintaining 


B 


iliiini 


338 

and  equipping  a  party  of  men  for  the  purpose  of  crossing  the 
Plains,  and  trapping,  or  hunting,  or  doing  >vork  in  the  moun- 
tains? 

Ans. — I  have  had  great  experience  and  general  knowledge 
of  such  things,  and  have  seen  and  accompanied  many  such. 
The  cost  of  these  expeditions  is  so  various  as  that  each  specific 
one  varies  from  all  the  rest,  according  to  the  point  of  depart- 
ure, the  distance  travelled,  and  the  length  of  time  occupied. 

Int.  5. — What  will  be  the  cost,  as  near  as  you  can  estimate 
it,  of  a  party  of  twenty  men,  leaving  St.  Joseph,  Missouri,  for 
an  expedition  on  the  Plains  to  Fort  Hall  and  back,  and  time 
occupied  being  six  months,  about  the  years  1843-4-5  and  C? 

Ans. — I  should  say  the  minimum  cost  would  be  $150  per 
man,  and  the  maximum  $300,  say,  average,  $200  per  man. 

Int.  6. — How  much  cultivated  land  was  thereat  Fort  Walla- 
Walla  belonging  to  the  Fort? 

Ans. — My  recollection  is  from  5  to  7  acres. 

Int.  7. — What  value  do  you  place  on  those  5  or  7  acres? 

Ans. — The  fields  were  small  bottoms  upon  the  creeks,  and 
their  value  from  $10  to  $12  per  acre. 

Int.  8. — You  have  estimated  the  moneyed  value  of  Fort  Walla- 
Walla,  including  the  cultivated  land,  at  $8  or  $9,000;  what 
value  would  you  put  upon  it,  excluding  the  land  of  the  value 
of  which  you  have  just  spoken? 

Ans.— The  estimate  of  $8,000  or  ^^0,000  was  intended  to 
embrace  the  aggregate  of  everything  that  went  to  give  value 
to  the  place.  The  buildings  of  Fort  Walla- Walla  were  at  that 
time  new,  and  built  to  replace  an  older  establishment  that  had 
been  burnt  down.  I  would  estimate  at  the  sum  already  esti- 
mated, deducting  the  valuation  placed  by  me  upon  the  land. 

Int.  9. — While  you  were  visiting  at  Vancouver  did  you  ride 
down  the  river  from  the  Fort  and  visit  any  farm  or  dairies  on 
the  Cathlapootl  river  ? 

Ans. — I  think  not.  I  only  rode  3  or  4  miles  down  the  river 
to  some  lakes. 

Int.  10. — At  what  time  in  the  year  did  you  make  this  ride 
of  4  miles  down  the  river? 

Ans. — In  the  spring ;  saw  them  ploughing. 


889 

Int.  11. — Did  you  place  any  value  on  the  Company's  Post 
at  Astoria,  which  you  have  described? 

Ans. — I  think  I  should  value  the  buildings  I  saw  there  at 
$1,200  or  $1,500. 

William  Gilpin. 

■Washington,  February  11,  1857. 


Ill  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  JTudson's  Bay  Company 
against  the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  Francis  Hudson,  a  witness  examined  on  behalf 
of  the  United  States,  by  agreement  between  Mr.  Beaman, 
on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  and  Mr.  Lander,  on  behalf 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Testimony  of  Francis  Hudson. 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  residence,  and  occupation? 

Ans. — Francis  Hudson,  Washington  City,  D.  C,  am  employ^ 
of  Coast  Survey. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  ever  been  in  Washington  Territory  ?  If 
so,  state  in  what  capacity  and  during  what  time. 

Ans. — Yes.  I  was  there  as  computer  on  the  Northwest 
Boundary  Survey,  during  the  years  1859  and  1860. 

Int.  3. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  location  of  the  Post 
lately  occupied  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  known  as 
Kootenay  ?  If  so,  please  state  where  it  was  situated,  and  whether 
it  was  north  or  south  of  the  49th  parallel  of  north  latitude. 

Ans. — I  know  two  such  places,  one  to  the  north  of  the  49th 
parallel,  and  one  to  the  south  of  the  line.  I  was  fully  under 
the  impression  that  the  one  north  of  the  line  was  also  called 
Kootenay,  and  my  impression  is  that  the  one  south  of  the  line 
was  the  old  post,  and  was  not  occupied. 

Int.  4. — Will  you  describe  the  Fort  Kootenay  north  of  the 
line? 

Ans. — I  was  only  there  once.  My  recollection  is  that  there 
was  only  one  building  there,  that  was  the  dwelling  of  the  oflS- 
cer  in  charge.  I  saw  but  one  man  connected  with  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  there. 


'\m«'  ■iiv*i> 


k 


IKir 


I'M 

m 

B"' 

''Hi 

my 

fp 

li  '' 

DM 

.MB 

P^'! 

'fll 

lUi'.M. 

s,  ;i.;? 


8, 


1'  1,'" 


I  'lifl 


f 


840 

Int.  r>. — AVoro  there  any  cultivated  lands  at  this  post? 

Ans. — None  at  all. 

Int.  C. — (Mr.  Laiulor  objects  to  all  statements  in  reference 
to  a  post  north  of  the  line  as  irrelevant.) 

Int.  7. — Will  you  describe  the  post  known  as  Fort  Kootenay, 
which  you  say  was  south  of  the  line,  and  was  not  occupied? 

Ans. — ^It  was  about  five  miles  south  of  the  49th  parallel, 
and  not  more  than  a  mile  north  of  the  Tobacco  river,  certainly 
not  two  miles.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  it  consisted  of  a 
building  called  a  churcli;  there  was  also  a  dwelling  for  the 
man  in  charge,  as  I  understood,  and  there  were  four  smaller 
buildings  I  believe;  I  am  not  certain  there  were  four. 

Int.  8. — Look  at  the  photograph  now  shown  you,  which  is 
in  evidence,  and  marked  Alexander  Gardner,  No.  1,  and  say 
if  you  recognize  it  as  a  correct  representative  of  the  building 
called  a  church. 

Ans. — I  recognize  the  building  in  photograph  as  the  one 
I  was  told  was  a  church. 

Int.  9. — State  also,  if  the  other  buildings  were  larger  or 
smaller,  and  similarly  built. 

Ans. — The  dwelling  of  the  man  in  charge  was  much  smaller 
and  was  similarly  built,  and  the  other  buildings  were  much 
inferior  and  quite  small. 

Int.  10. — How  long  were  you  at  and  about  the  post  last 
described? 

Ans. — I  can't  answer  certainly;  it  might  have  been  about 
four  or  five  weeks. 

l7it.  11. — Whether  you  saw  any  persons  living  at  this  post; 
if  so,  how  many,  and  how  employed. 

Ans. — I  saw  no  one  there. 

Int.  12. — Whether  or  no  you  saw  any  land  that  appeared 
to  have  been  cultivated? 

Ans. — None. 

Int.  13. — Did  you  see  any  herds  of  cattle  or  horses  at  this 
post? 

Ans. — None  at  all. 

Int.  14. — Whether  or  no,  while  the  Commission  was  sta- 
tioned near  where  the  Kootenay  river  crosses  the  49th  parallel 


841 

of  latitude,  you  saw  or  heard  of  any  other  fort  or  post  of  the 
Hudson's  Buy  Company,  or  any  other  white  man's  habitation 
on  or  near  the  Kootenay  and  Tobacco  rivers  than  the  one  you 
have  already  described  ? 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  that  portion  of  the  question  where 
witness  is  asked  about  what  he  heard.) 

Ans. — No,  none  at  all. 

F.  Hudson. 

February  13,  1867. 


CroHS' Examination. 

Jut.  1. — IIow  did  you  know  that  this  building  you  recog- 
nize in  the  photograph  was  a  church? 

Aihs. — I  do  not  know  that  it  was  a  chuch,  but  it  was  gen- 
erally reputed  so  by  the  officers  of  the  Boundary  Commission. 

Int.  2. — Do  you  not  believe  that  thi.'  reputation  among  the 
officers  of  the  Commission  arose  from  statements  of  Indian 
guides? 

J«s. — I  cannot  say;  I  think  it  quite  possible. 

Tf'.  3  — About  how  largo  was  this  building,  giving  as  near 
as  you  can  its  length,  its  height,  and  its  width? 

Ans. — I  never  made  an  estimate  at  the  time,  but  I  should 
say  about  40  by  15,  and  not  more  than  5  feet  high  at  the 
eaves. 

Int.  4. — How  often  did  you  visit  this  place? 

Ans. — I  can't  say  precisely,  but  certainly  half  a  dozen 
times. 

Int.  5. — What  was  there  about  it  that  made  you  ride  five 
miles  to  visit  this  particular  locality? 

Ans. — Well,  in  the  first  place,  I  walked  there;  I  visited  it 
once  out  of  curiosity,  and  was  there  several  times  while  on 
duty. 

Int.  G. — Might  there  not  have  been  on  the  Tobacco  plain 
remains  of  other  buildings,  which  may  have  escaped  your 
notice  by  being  concealed  by  undergrowth  or  grass. 

Ans. — I  don't  know  where  the  Tobacco  plains  are;  they  are 
located  in  half  a  dozen  difi'erent  places. 


iv. 


342 

Int.  8. — Might  there  not  have  been  in  the  valley  of  the 
Kootenay,  and  within  four  miles  of  the  Tobacco  river,  and 
north  of  it,  remains  of  buildings  not  seen  by  you? 

Ans. — I  think  not,  decidedly. 

lilt.  9. — Was  this  church  which  you  hu,ve  described  built 
of  square  logs  or  not  ? 

Ans. — The  building  pointed  out  *o  me  as  a  church  was  not 
built  of  square  logs. 

Int.  10. — Were  any  of  the  other  buildings,  described  by 
you  as  being  there,  built  of  square  logs  ? 

Ans. — None  of  them. 

F.  Hudson. 

Washington,  D.  C,  Feliruary  13,  1867. 


V  111  i 


:ji'     ill 


% 


Ml 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against 

the  United  States. 

Before  me  personally  appeared  Francis  Hudson,  to  w^hom  I 
administered  the  following  oath  : 

"You  solemnly  swear  that  the  evidence  you  shall  give  in 
the  matter  of  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against 
the  United  States  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth.     So  help  you  God." 

Witness  my  hand  this  13th  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1867. 

Sam'l  H.  Huntington, 

Chief  Clerk  Court  of  Claims. 

Washington  City. 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against 

the  United  States. 

The  deposition  of  James  G.  Swan,  takea  inbeh-'lf  of  the  United 
States.  C.  C.  Bearaan  representing  the  United  States,  and 
Edward  Lander  representing  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Testimony  of  James  G.  Swan. 

Int.  1. — Please  to  state  your  name  in  full,  residence,  and 
occupation 


-^(|iniPig0ll|V^i||Mi|>i  iimpin!i9H)np)IR.piJilik IMW. 


343 


Alls. — James  G.  Swan,  Port  Townslicnd,  Washington  Terri- 
tory, merchant. 

Int.  2. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  lands  and  territory 
on  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river,  below  where  the  Cowlitz 
river  enters  ? 

Ans. — I  am.  I  went  to  reside  at  Shoal-water  Ba}',  near  the 
mouth  of  the  Columbia  river,  in  1852,  and  resided  there  about 
four  years.  A  part  of  the  time  T  was  inspector  of  the  customs 
under  General  Adair,  the  collector  at  Astoria. 

Int.  3. — Are  you  acquainted  with  Astoria  or  Fort  George, 
the  former  post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  am. 

Int.  4. — What  was  its  character,  condition,  or  value  at  the 
time  you  knew  it? 

Ans. — At  the  time  I  was  there,  there  was  no  vestige  of  any 
post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Int.  5. — Whether  or  no  you  ever  visited  Cape  Disappoint- 
ment? 

Ans. — I  have  visited  that  portion  of  it  known  as  Pacific 
City,  at  Baker's  Bay. 

Intii^  6. — Whether  or  no  vou  know  or  ever  heard  of  the  occu- 
pation  of  any  land  on  Cape  Disappointment  by  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  previous  to  1856  ? 

Ans. — I  never  heard  of  any  such  occupancy  or  any  such 
claim.  I  never  heard  Duchesney  or  Captain  Scarborough,  both 
formerly  in  the  service  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  men- 
tion any  such  claim. 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  so  much  of  the  above  question  as 
refers  to  what  the  witness  had  heard.) 

Int.  7. — What  were  your  acquaintance  and  opportunities  for 
conversation  with  Mr.  Duchesney  and  Captain  Scarborough? 

Ans. — I  stopped  at  Duchesney's  house  on  my  way  to  Asto- 
ria, whenever  I  had  occasion  to  go  to  Astoria,  and  met  Cap- 
tain Scarborough  in  Duchesney's  house. 

James  G.  Swan. 

February  16,  1867. 


il! 


'W 


\if 


344 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudsoria  Bay   Company 
against  the  United  Slates. 

Deposition  of  Titian  R.  Peale,  witness  produced  and  examined 
on  the  part  if  the  United  States,  by  agreement  between 
C.  C.  Beaman,  counsel  for  the  United  States,  and  Edward 
Lander,  counsel  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Testimony  of  Titian  11.  Peale. 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  residence,  and  occupation  ? 

Ans. — Titian  R.  Peale,  Washington  city;  occupation,  ex- 
aminer of  patents. 

Int.  2. — In  what  particular  service  were  you  employed  in 
the  year  1841? 

Ans. — I  was  a  naturalist  in  the  United  States  exploring  ex- 
pedition under  Captain  Wilkes,  and  was  on  board  the  United 
States  ship  Peacock,  and  was  Avrecked  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Columbia  river  in  the  last  of  the  month  of  July  of  that  year. 

Int.  3. — Whether,  during  the  year  1841,  you  ever  visited 
Cape  Disappointment?  If  so,  describe  the  character  gof  the 
cape. 

Ans. — I  did.  The  Peacock  was  wrecked  oif  Cape  Disap- 
pointment; it  was  r,  rocky  promontory,  fronting  on  marshy 
land,  th*^  timber  commencing  behind  the  marsh,  to  the  west  of 
Baker's  Bay. 

Int.  4. — W^as  there  any  part  of  a  tract  of  land  at  the  end 
of  this  cape  containing  G40  acres  suitable  for  cultivation  ? 

Ans. — I  should  think  not. 

Int.  5. — Whether  or  no  there  was  any  post  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  on  this  cape  in  1841  ? 

Ans. — At  that  time  there  was  no  building  there,  or  prepa- 
ration for  buildings,  that  we  saw. 

Int.  6. — Whether  or  no  you  ever  visited  Astoria,  known  as 
Fort  George  ? 

.  Ans. — I  was  there  for  two  days  in  the  last  of  July,  1841. 
It  was  then  in  charge  of  Mr.  Birnie.  The  principal  building 
was  of  squared  logs,  or  puncheons,  erected  on  the  slope  of  a 


345 


the  Hudson's 


ei'e,  or  prepa- 


hill,  one  story  at  one  end,  and  two  stories  at  the  other  end. 
There  were  several  out-buildings,  smaller  in  dimensions,  also 
built  of  timber. 

Int.  7. — What  would  you  estjmate  to  have  been  the  value 
of  the  buildings  of  this  post? 

Ans. — I  should  suppose  they  could  not  have  cost  more  than 
$500  or  $000. 

Int.  8. — What  do  you  know  of  the  trade  at  this  post? 

Ans.-  ^t  the  time  we  were  there  I  understood  from  Mr. 
Biniie  the  trade  to  be  almost  entirely  in  salmon,  a  few  sea- 
otter  skins,  and  articles  of  a  similar  character. 

(The  understanding  from  Mr.  Birnie  objected  to  by  Mr. 
Lander  as  incompetent.) 

Int.  9. — Have  you  ever  visited  Fort  Vancouver,  a  Post  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  on  the  Columbia  river? 

Ans. — I  was  at  Fort  Vancouver  for  about  a  week  in  the 
latter  part  of  July,  1841.  The  fort  was  a  stockade  built  of 
timber,  the  main  building  being  enclosed  within  the  stockade, 
being  built  of  square  logs,  the  smaller  buildings  built  of 
puncheons.  Puncheons  are  split  logs  set  in  a  frame  to  econo- 
mize lumber.  All  the  buildings  were  of  one  story,  with  a 
basement  collar  in  some  of  the  larger  buildings.  The  outer 
buildings  Avere  not  built  with  the  same  care  as  those  within 
the  stockade. 

Int.  10. — Of  what  kind  of  timber  were  these  buildings  con- 
structed, how  were  they  put  together,  and  where  was  the  tim- 
ber cut? 

Ans. — The  material  was  usually  pine,  or  a  kind  of  cypress 
grown  in  the  immediate  neighborhood,  and  were  squared  by 
hand,  and  put  together  by  a  kind  of  dovc-taiiing  in  the  better- 
finished  houses.  The  windows  in  the  residences  were  glazed, 
with  metal  hinges  to  the  doors.  There  was  no  iron  used  in 
the  joining  together  of  these  timbers 

Int.  11. — Can  you  estimate  how  long  this  pine  or  cypress 
timber  would  Avithstand  exposure  to  the  weather? 

Ans. — I  have  no  knowledge  how  long  it  would  stand  expo- 
sure to  the  weather.  It  was  a  perishable  material,  however, 
as  we  saw  at  the  first  site  occupied  by  Fort  Vancouver,  which 


W  r  I 


I      ! 


I  Jl 


346 

was  on  the  second  plateau  of  tK'"  river,  wlicre  little  ornothing 
remained,  though  but  fc.v  years  had  expired  from  the  time  of 
removal. 

Int.  12. — What  would  you  estimate  to  have  been  the  cost 
of  the  stockade  and  the  buildings  which  you  saw  at  Fort  Van- 
couver ? 

Ans. — From  the  fact  that  the  timber  grew  on  the  spot  I 
should  not  suppose  that  the  erection  of  the  buildings  and 
stockade  could  have  cost  more  than  $2o,000. 

Int.  13. — What  do  you  know  of  the  value  of  the  fur  trade 
at  Fort  Vancouver? 

Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  now  of  the  value  of  the  fur 
trade  at  that  period,  but  was  informed  that  its  value  was 
decreasing. 

(Mr;  Lander  objects  to  any  statements  learned  from  infor- 
mation of  others  as  incompetent.) 

Int.  14. — State  under  what  circumstances  and  from  whom 
you  received  this  information. 

Ans. — I  received  the  information  from  both  Governors 
Douglas  and  McLoughlin,  both  officers  of  the  Company.  This 
was  in  answer  to  my  inquiries  whether  their  agricultural  im- 
provements had  anything  to  do  with  the  fur  trade.  They 
both  gave  me  the  impression  the  fur  trade  was  decreasing  in 
value,  and  the  agricultural  Improvements  were  being  made  to 
increase  resources  and  provide  a  retreat  for  the  members  of 
the  Company  retiring  from  active  life. 

(Information  derived  from  the  statements  of  the  oflScers  of 
the  Company  objected  to  by  Mr.  Lander.) 

Cross- Examination  by  Mr.  Lander. 

Int.  1. — Where  did  you  go  on  shore  at  Cape  Disappoint- 
ment? 

Ans, — We  landed  on  the  west  side  of  Baker's  Bay,  inside 
of  Cape  Disappointment. 

Int.  2. — Did  you  remain  there  any  length  of  time? 

Ans. — Only  twenty-four  hours. 

Int.  3. — At  what  time  of  the  day  did  you  arrive,  and  when 
did  you  leave? 


347 


Ic  or  nothing 
I  the  time  of 


he  fur  trade 


members  of 


le  officers  of 


yiws. — We  landed  in  the  morning  and  left  there  the  next 
.moniing  for  Astoria. 

Int.  4. — Did  you  make  any  other  visit  than  this  you  have 
mentioned  to  Cape  Disappointment? 

Ans. — No,  I  did  not. 

Int.  5. — Did  you  erect  a  tent  on  the  beach? 

A)is. — No;  there  was  no  accommodation  provided  for  the 
officers  or  men  until  we  got  to  Astoria,  except  that,  I  think, 
Mr.  Jiirnie,  or  some  one,  sent  down  a  tent  the  morning  I  left 
there. 

Int.  6. — Did  you  go  on  to  the  Cape  Disappointment? 

Ans. — I  did.  I  went  by  land  on  the  beach.  I  went  as  far 
as  I  could  by  the  beach  and  then  ascended  the  promontory. 

Int.  7. — At  what  time  did  you  return  to  the  camp? 

Ans. — I  think  I  went  and  returned  in  about  two  hours  and 
a  luilf. 

Int.  8. — In  what  other,  if  any,  direction  did  you  go  after 
you  returned  to  camp? 

Ans. — Across  the  Columbia  river  to  the  missionary  station, 
in  canoes.  The  station  was  on  the  south  side  of  the  river. 
Wc  did  not  return  from  the  mission  to  Cape  Disappointment, 
but  went  from  the  mission  in  boats  to  Astoria. 

Int.  9. — Have  you  ever  built  or  caused  to  be  built  any 
squared  log  buildings  in  what  was  then  Oregon  ;  or  do  you 
personally  know  the  cost  of  any  such  buildings,  or  the  price 
of  the  labor  of  those  employed  in  building  them? 

Ans. — No.  I  do  not  know  personally  the  cost  of  any  such 
buildings,  nor  do  I  know  the  price  of  labor  in  Oregon.  I 
knew  public  buildings  built  in  other  places  than  Oregon,  and 
the  price  of  labor  did  not  enter  into  the  estimate  of  cost.  The 
time  we  were  in  Oregon  there  could  be  no  estimate  put  on 
labor,  as  there  was  no  currency. 

Int.  10. — Did  you  see  any  trading  done  at  Astoria  while 
you  were  there? 

Ans. — Only  for  salmon. 

Int.  11. — At  the  time  you  visited  Fort  Vancouver  what  con* 
dition  were  the  buildings  in  within  the  stockade? 

Ans. — They  were  all  in  good  condition  at  that  period. 


1  ,Nft-'f"."»;i»'«!7!»"WMWUi 


348 


lit 


Int.  12. — Were  there  any  buildings  in  process  of  erection  at 
that  time  within  the  stockade? 

Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  of  seeing  any. 

Int.  13. — Do  you  not  recollect  that  some  of  these  buildings 
within  the  stockade,  used  for  storehouses,  were  of  two  stories? 

Avs. — On  tl  c  east  and  south  front,  I  now  recollect  that 
there  were  buildings  of  two  stories  used  as  stores. 

Int.  14. — Did  you  give  such  a  particular  examination  to 
the  buildings  within  the  stockade  as  to  impress  it  upon  your 
memory  with  such  distinctness  as  to  enable  you,  after  twenty- 
six  years,  to  give  an  accurate  description  of  the  buildings  you 
saw  in  1841? 

Ans. — No;  I  did  not  so  observe  them  as  to  remember  dis- 
tinctly at  the  present  time.  I  do  not  remember  all  the  build- 
ings distinctly.  My  impressions  are  stronger  in  reference  to 
the  dwelling-houses. 

Int.  15. — Can  you  state  of  what  kind  of  wood  these  build- 
ings were  built?     If  so,  state  what  it  was. 

Ans. — Pine  and  cypress. 

Int.  16. — What  other  name,  if  any,  is  there  for  the  tree  you 
call  cypress? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  the  botanical  name. 

Int.  17. — Is  the  cypress  you  have  reference  to  a  deciduous 
tree? 

Ans. — No;  it  is  an  evergreen. 

Int.  18. — Were  not  the  pine  and  cypress  you  refer  to  resin- 
ous trees  ? 

Ans. — They  were. 

Int.  19. — Do  you  not  know  that  the  resinous  trees  can  remain 
a  long  time  exposed  to  the  weather  without  aecay? 

Ans. — Some  do,  but  not  all,  the  hemlock  of  the  eastern 
regions  being  considered  a  perishable  wood. 

Int.  20. — Do  you  know  anything  of  the  red  fir  tree  of  Ore- 
gon and  Washington  Territory? 

Ans. — I  do  not. 

Int.  21. — Can  you  tell,  by  looking  upon  squared  timber  in 
buildings  which  have  been  erected  for  several  years,  of  what 
species  of  fir  or  pine  ihf^  are  built? 


n^ffl^r^^mmti^i^^wiinmnti 


f  erection  at 


i  these  build- 


0  a  deciduous 


refer  to  resin- 


r  tree  of  Ore- 


349 

Ans. — I  think  I  could  with  tolerable  certainty. 

Int.  22. — Is  not  your  statement  that  those  buildings  were 
erected  from  pine  aiid  cypress  trees  rather  derived  from  the 
fact  that  you  believed  you  saw  trees  of  this  description  grow- 
ing in  a  forest  back  of  the  site  of  the  old  fort,  than  from  the 
fact  that  you  observed  these  two  kinds  of  wood  in  the  build- 
ings themselves? 

Aiix. — That  is  true  as  regards  the  buildings  themselves. 
As  regards  the  stockade,  my  impression  is  that  they  were  of 
the  kinds  of  trees  the  stumps  of  which  were  still  existing  in 
the  immediate  neighborhood. 

Jilt.  23. — Have  you  any  better  means  of  knowledge  of  the 
cost  of  the  buildings  at  Vancouver  than  you  had  of  those  at 
Astoria? 

Ans. — I  have  not. 

Examination-in- Chief  Resumed. 

Int.  1. — Whether  or  no,  from  the  promontory  at  the  ex- 
tremity of  Cape  Disappointment  you  had  a  view  of  a  tract  of 
land  a  mile  square? 

Ans. — I  think  I  had.  It  was  a  marshy  meadow  land,  with  a 
fringe  of  timber  next  to  Baker's  Bay. 

Cross-Examination  Resumed. 

Int.  1. — Is  not  Cape  Disappointment  a  promontory  rising 
nearly  200  feet  abruptly  from  the  water;  does  not  that  height 
continue  backwards  to  the  north,  as  observed  from  the  water 
in  Baker's  Bay,  to  gome  distance,  certainly  for  more  than  a 
mile? 

Ans. — My  present  impression  is  that  Cape  Disappointment 
is  not  that  high.  I  have  been  speaking  of  the  main  point, 
which  is  disconnected  from  the  high  land  which  forms  the  west 
side  of  Baker's  Bay. 

Int.  2. — Was  not  the  land  on  Cape  Disappointment,  imme- 
diatel}'^  north  where  you  stood,  covered  for  at  least  a  quarter 
of  a  mile  with  a  thick  growth  of  timber? 

Ans. — No ;  my  recollection  is  that  for  about  a  quarter  of 


350 

a  mile  north  of  Cape  Disappointment  is  a  low,  sandy  beach, 
bounded  inland  by  bushes. 

Int.  3. — From  where  you  stood,  how  far  could  you  see 
looking  inland? 

Arts. — My  recollection  is  that  it  was  about  half  a  mile  across 
the  meadow  land  up  to  the  timber. 

Int.  4. — About  how  much  land,  if  you  are  able  to  estimate  it, 
Avas  embraced  in  the  marshy  space  you  have  spoken  of;  what 
was  its  length  and  breadth  ? 

Ans. — It  was  about  half  a  mile  square. 

T.    R.    ^EALE. 

February  25,  1807. 


In  the  matter  of  the.  Claim  of  the  Iltfdsons  Bay  Companij 
ayaimt  the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  General  Benjamin  Alvord.  Witness  examined 
on  behalf  of  the  United  States  by  agreement  between  C. 
C.  Beaman,  counsel  for  the  United  States,  and  Edward 
Lander,  counsel  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Testimony  of  General  Benjamin  Alvord. 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  residence,  occupation? 

Ans. — Benjamin  Alvord,  residence.  New  York  city,  pay- 
master in  the  United  States  Army. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  ever  been  at  Fort  Vancouver,  a  post  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ?  If  so,  when,  and  at  what  time  or 
times? 

Ans. — I  arrived  at  Fort  Vancouver  in  September,  1852,  and 
left  there  in  the  spring  of  1805.  I  was  at  that  post  the  greater 
portion  of  that  time.  From  1855  I  was  employed  as  pay- 
master in  the  United  States  Army ;  from  1802  to  1805  as 
Brigadier  General  of  volunteers  in  command  of  the  district 
of  Oregon. 

Int.  3. — Describe  Vancouver  as  you  saw  it  in  1852. 

Ans. — There  was  a  stockade  surrounded  with  pickets,  occu- 
pied by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.     Outside  of  the  pickets 


HI  iii9t»  wmmfftm 


351 

there  was  one  building  belonging  to  the  Company  occupied  as 
a  hospital  by  the  United  States  troops,  a  Catholic  church,  and 
two  or  three  buildings  surrounding  it,  and  two  or  three  other 
small  buildings.  Inside  the  pickets  was  a  building  occupied 
as  a  store  in  the  lower  story,  the  upper  story  was  a  storehouse, 
and  two  other  largo  buildings  were  storehouses.  There  was 
also  one  building  occupied  by  the  officers  of  the  Company,  one 
building  as  an  office,  and  a  range  of  smaller  buildings  occu- 
pied by  the  servants  of  the  Company;  also  a  magazine  and 
block-house. 

Jnt.  4. — Describe  any  changes  that  took  place  in  the  build- 
ing while  you  were  there. 

Ans. — In  1859,  when  the  Company  left,  the  buildings  were, 
most  of  them,  very  much  dilapidated,  some  of  them  in  decay, 
especially  as  most  of  the  buildings  had,  I  think,  a  wooden 
foundation. 

Int.  5. — How  were  the  buildings  of  the  Company  constructed, 
and  of  what  material,  and  where  was  it  procured? 

Ans. — Of  Douglas  spruce  logs  hewn  square,  in  a  portion  of 
the  buildings;  some  of  them  were  of  logs  unhewn,  procured  in 
that  vicinity.  There  was  a  spruce  forest  in  the  rear  of  the 
post.  The  unhewn  logs  were  put  together  in  notches.  I  don't 
remember  how  the  hewed  logs  were  put  together. 

Int.  6. — What  would  you  estimate  to  have  been  the  value  of 
the  stockade  and  all  the  buildings  owned  by  the  Company  at 
this  Post  in  1852? 

Ans. — About  $25,000  for  the  stockade  and  buildings  within 
the  pickets.  The  price  of  lumber  was  very  high,  and  for  that 
reason  the  United  States  military  barracks  were  built  of  logs. 

Int.  7. — What  would  you  estimate  the  stockade  and  build- 
ings to  have  been  worth  in  1859? 

Ans. — They  were  so  much  decayed  they  were  worth  very 
Httle. 

Int.  8. — What  do  you  know  of  the  military  reservation  at 
Fort  Vancouver? 

Ans. — A  military  reservation  of  four  square  miles  was  first 
laid  off.     In  the  spring  of  1853  a  law  of  Congress  reduced  all 


23  H 


:ti 


; 


il 


i  ii 


III'  1 1 


1^  I 


I 


1?    ill 


I 


852 

military  rcsorvntiona  for  forts  in  Orof^on  to  040  acres.     T  was 
tliero  wlicii  flic  lines  of  the  small  reservation  were  run. 

Inf.  1*. — AVIictlier  or  no  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  desired 
that  the  reservation  should  be  lai\iie  or  small? 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  this  question  as  incompetent,  irrele- 
vant.) 

Ani<. — I  think  a  largo  reservation  was  agreeable  to  the  TTud- 
son's  Bay  Company  as  protecting  them  against  the  encroach- 
ments of  the  settlers. 

Int.  10. — Tiook  at  the  photographs  now  shown  you  marked 
"C"  and  'M),"  and  state  what  they  rejjresent. 

ybi.s'. — The  one  marked  "C"  is  the  northeast  corner  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  stockade  at  Fort  A'^ancouvcr  from  the  inside, 
embracing  the  building  occupied  by  the  ollicers  of  the  Com- 
pany, and  another  building  occupied  by  the  servants  of  the 
Company.  Tiie  one  marked  "D"  represents  the  northwest 
corner  of  the  stockade,  embracing  the  principal  store. 

(JrosH- Examination. 

Int.  1. — Was  there  not  outside  the  pickets  a  building  occu- 
pied as  an  ordnance  building? 

An.'?. — A  portion  of  the  building  I  have  described  as  being 
used  as  a  hospital  was  also  used  as  an  ordnance  storehouse. 

Int.  2. — Look  on  this  list  of  ])uildings  within  the  fort, 
dwelling-houses,  stores,  and  workshops,  now  shown  to  you,  on 
the  202d  and  20-3d  pages  of  the  printed  testimony  in  behalf 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  state  whether  these  build- 
ings were  not  there  in  1852,  and  whether  those  buildings  were 
not  there  in  18.59. 

Ans. — I  would  add  to  ray  first  description  of  the  buildings 
a  granary  and  blacksmith's  shop,  and  a  building  adjoining  the 
oflScers'  quarters  near  the  gate;  the  latter,  when  I  first  became 
acquainted  with  it,  was  very  much  gone  to  decay. 

I)it.  3. — Can  you  name  any  particular  building  of  those  you 
have  mentioned  inside  of  the  stockade  which  was  in  decay  in 
1859? 

Ans. — The  building  occupied  by  the  ofiicers  of  the  Company 
was  propped  up  repeatedly,  and  the  other  building,  the  other 


853 


the  buildings 


!  first  became 


.«i{le  of  the  gate,  was  in  considerable  decay.  All  the  store- 
houses Avere  much  in  want  of  repair. 

Int.  4. — State  in  what  manner  the  building  occupied  by  the 
officers  was  propped  up. 

Ana, — My  impression  is,  the  foundations  were  decayed.  I 
witnessed,  once  or  twice,  the  process  of  repair.  I  saw  work- 
men at  work  on  the  front  porch,  in  the  front  part  of  the 
house. 

Int.  5. — In  what  part  of  the  storehouses  did  you  notice  any 
decay  ? 

Ans. — The  foundations  of  the  building  occupied  at  one  lime 
as  a  commissary  storehouse. 

Int.  6. — What  portion  of  the  foundation  was  in  decay,  and 
to  what  extent? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say.  My  attention  was  drawn  to  that  build- 
ing, at  one  time,  in  connection  Avith  abandoning  its  use  as  a 
storehouse,  and  the  necessity  of  one  being  built  by  the  Quar- 
termaster's Department. 

Int.  7. — What,  if  any,  estimate  was  made  of  the  cost  of  the 
building  spoken  of  above  for  the  quartermaster? 

Ans. — I  don't  know. 

Int.  8. — Do  you  feel  certain  that  there  was  any  building 
within  the  stockade  built  of  unhewn  logs? 

Ans. — I  think  none  of  the  principal  buildings  were. 

Int.  9. — State  what  building  was  built  of  unhewn  logs,  and 
in  what  part  of  the  enclosure. 

Ans. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  10. — Do  you  not  think  you  may  be  mistaken  in  saying 
that  any  of  the  buildings  inside  of  the  enclosure  Avere  built 
either  of  hcAved  logs  or  unhcAvn  logs  ? 

Ans. — The  whole  fort  was  of  logs.  All  the  principal  build- 
ings were  of  hewn  logs. 

Int.  11. — Did  you  observe  the  building  carefully  enough  to 
say  whether  these  buildings  were  of  hewn  logs  or  sawed  logs? 

Ans. — I  think  a  portion  were  hcAved  and  a  portion  sawed. 

hit.  12. — Can  you  say  whether  the  house  occujpied  by  the 
chief  factor  was  a  frame  or  a  log  house? 

Ans. — I  think  it  was  a  log  house  Avith  clap-boards  on  it. 


m 


3r)4 

Jnt.  13. — Do  you  know  anything  of  the  price  of  saweil 
lumber  per  1,000  feet,  at  board  measure,  in  18G2,  at  Van- 
couver? 

Ah8. — I  came  there  in  1852,  and  stayed  a  few  days,  and 
went  to  the  Dalles.  Lumber  at  the  Dalles  in  the  summer  of 
1853  sold  at  .^75  a  thousand. 

Int.  14. — Is  the  estimate  you  place  on  these  buildings  in 
1852  based  upon  the  idea  that  they  were  built  of  hewn  and 
unhewn  logs? 

Ans. — No. 

Int.  15. — Do  you  know  the  price,  and  can  you  now  state  it, 
per  running  foot  of  hewn  timber,  such  as  you  say  some  of 
these  buildings  were  built  of  in  1852? 

Ans. — No. 

Int.  10. — Have  you  ever  calculated  or  estimated  what  amount 
of  hewn  timber  or  sawed  lumber  there  was  in  any  single  building 
you  have  spoken  of  inside  the  stockade  in  1852? 

Alls. — No. 

Int.  17. — Did  you  know,  and  can  you  now  state,  what  was 
the  price  of  shingles  per  thousand  at  Vancouver  in  1852  ? 

Ans. — No. 

Int.  18. — Do  you  know  the  price  or  value  of  laboi*,  skilled 
and  unskilled,  at  Vancouver,  in  1852? 

Ans. — Carpenters  asked  from  ^4  to  $5  a  day. 

Int.  19. — What  value  do  you  place  on  the  buildings  at  Van- 
couver in  1859  ? 

Ans. — They  had  been  of  so  little  value  since  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  left  them,  that  the  military  authorities  have 
never  occupied  them  except  for  stabling  horses,  mules,  and 
animals  in  the  winter  time. 

Int.  20. — Do  you  wish  to  be  understood  in  saying  that  they 
were  of  little  value,  because  they  were  of  little  value  to  the 
military  authorities  on  the  military  reservation? 

Ans. — I  do,  because  there  was  frequent  want  of  quarters. 
Buildings  in  the  town  adjoining  have  been  hired,  and  no  prop- 
osition made  to  occupy  the  abandoned  buildings  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company. 

Int.  21. — When  you  speak  of  their  being  of  little  value,  how 


Oiit)  • 

long  after  thoy  were  left  by  the  IIikIsoh'm  liay  Company  did 
you  put  this  value  upon  tlioin? 

An8. — Immediately  after  they  left,  for  no  occupation  by  the 
Quartermaster's  Department  except  as  above  described,  was 
made. 

Int.  22. — In  what  year  and  what  time  of  the  year  did  the 
Company  leave? 

Ans. — The  summer  of  1850,  I  think. 

Int.  23. — In  what  year  and  what  time  of  the  year  was  the 
British  Boundary  Commission  encamped  inside  the  stockade 
at  Vancouver? 

Ans. — I  don't  know. 

Washington  City,  Fehrnary  26,  1867. 

Examination-in- Chief  Resumed. 

Lit.  1. — What  do  you  know  of  the  character  of  the  winter 
of  1852  in  Oregon? 

Ans. — That  winter  I  commanded  at  Fort  Dalles,  Oregon. 
The  winter  was  one  of  extraordinary  severity.  The  navigation 
of  the  Columbia  closed  on  tiie  4th  of  December,  1852,  and 
remained  closed  until  the  latter  part  of  January.  It  generally 
did  not  close  until  Christmas.  A  large  number  of  cattle  came 
across  the  Plains  that  fall,  and  great  numbers  of  them  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  Dalles  perished  from  cold  and  want  of  food. 
Usually,  the  bunch  grass  of  the  prairies  was  accessible  for  their 
subsistence,  but  was  not  accessible  that  winter  from  the  depth 
of  snow. 

Cross- Examination  Resumed. 

Int.  1. — Is  not  the  Dalles  situated  at  the  foot  of  the  Cascade 
mountains  and  on  its  eastern  base,  about  60  miles,  if  not  more, 
from  the  western  base,  and  is  not  the  climate  east  of  the  Cas- 
cades different  in  chara'Jteristics  from  the  country  west  of  the 
Cascades? 

Ans. — The  foot  of  the  eastern  slope  of  the  Cascade  range  is 
20  miles  below  the  Dalles.  On  my  arrival  at  the  Dalles,  in 
1852,  the  settlers  said  that  during  the  previous  winter  there 


"3^ 


iiim 

I^H 

||MH 

]  WiWIil 

Wm 

mm 

856 

was  very  little  snow,  and  the  winter  bland  and  mild  as  the 
climate  of  Italy.  This  deluded  the  emigrants  to  leaving  their 
cattle  there  that  winter.  The  climate  at  the  Dalles  is  gener- 
ally a  little  colder  than  at  Fort  Vancouver,  but  great  numbers 
of  catlle  perished  that  vinte/  in  the  Willamette  Valley,  and 
n  the  whole  region  Avest  of  the  Cascxde  mountains. 

Int.  2. — Is  not  your  statement  as:  3  the  numbers  of  cattle 
dying  in  the  Willamette  Valley  and  Avest  of  the  Cascades 
derived  from  statementc  rsa.de  to  you  by  others,  and  not  from 
your  own  personal  knowledge? 

Anf<. — In  the  summer  of  1853  I  was  ordered  to  Umpqua 
and  Rogue  River  Valley  to  locate  a  military  road,  and  made 
nquirios  all  along  the  line  of  my  travel  through  the  Willa- 
mette Valley  as  to  the  severity  of  the  previous  winter. 

Int.  3. — Did  you  notice  the  emigrant  cattle  at  the  Dalles 
among  which  this  mortality  occurred  of  which  you  have  spoken  ? 

Ans. — I  did. 

Int.  4. — Were  they  not  on  arrival  very  low  in  the  flesh,  and 
unable  to  stand,  from  that  reason,  the  cold  of  that  winter? 

Ans. — They  were;  but  all  cattle  were  alike.  Even  mules 
were  killed  for  want  of  food,  if  for  no  other  reason.  If  a  thaw 
came,  the  snow  was  immediately  frozen,  and  the  grass  entirely 
inaccessible. 

Int.  5. — Do  you  not  know  that  a  mule  is  an  animal  much 
less  capable  of  sustaining  severe  cold,  and  more  liable  to  per- 
ish from  it,  than  either  the  horse  or  the  ox? 

Ans. — I  don't  think  so. 

Int.  6. — Do  you  not  know  that  some  of  these  emigrant  cattle 
survived  that  winter? 

Ans. — I  think  that  none  survived  that  were  not  fed  by  their 
owners. 

lilt.  7. — Did  not  a  large  number  of  these  emigrant  cattle 
belong  to  an  emigrant  by  the  name  of  Hayes? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  8. — Was  not  this  man  Hayes  afterwards  a  resident  on 
P'jget's  Sound  ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  9. — Is  not  the  Cascade  range  between  Vancouver  and 


357 

the  Dalles,  a  range  of  mountains  some  60  or  70  miles  in 
width,  and  is  not  the  country  on  the  eastern  slope  of  the 
Cascades,  and  to  the  east  of  it,  a  vast,  open  plain  or  plateau, 
generally  free  from  forests,  and,  as  a  general  rule,  dry  and 
arid  ? 

Ans. — The  description  in  the  question  is  generally  correct. 
The  width  of  the  Cascade  range  is  about  fifty  miles. 

Int.  10 — Is  not  the  country  west  of  the  Cascades  and  north 
of  the  Cumberland  river,  and  for  at  least  20  miles  south  of 
it,  almost  an  unbroken  forest,  with  here  and  there  prairies 
interspersed,  and  with  a  moist  and  huimid  cli'i'ate  ? 

Ans.  Yes. 

Int.  11. — Are  you  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  forests  in  the 
winter  season  afford  shelter  and  food  to  cattle  ranging  in 
them? 

Ans. — To  a  certain  extent  this  is  true. 

(All  the  above  testimony  with  reference  to  the  Dalks,  the 
winters  of  1852  and  1853,  the  emigrant  cattle,  umI  the  mor- 
tality among  them,  objected  to  by  Mr.  Lander  us  immaterial 
and  irrelevant.) 

Bkxj.  Alvord, 
Paymaster  and  Bvt.  Brig.  General  U.  S.  Army. 

February  28,  1857. 


In.  the  matter  of  the  Cla'ai  ;j  Hie  Hudson's  Bay  Comjtany  ayainst 

the  United  States. 


resident  on 


Deposition  of  Benjamin  F.  Dowkll,  witness  examined  on  be- 
half of  the  United  States  by  agreement  between  C.  C. 
Beaman,  counsel  for  the  United  States,  and  Edwin  Lan- 
der, counsel  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Testimosy  of  B.  F.  Dowell. 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  residence,  and  occupation? 
Ans. — Benjamin  F.  Dowell,  Jacksonville,  Jackson  county, 
Oregon,  attorney  at  law. 


358 


1,1  ^H: 


l«'ir^ 


^1  s'l ' 


Jw<.  2. — Have  you  ever  visited  Umpqua,  a  post  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  have. 

Int.  3. — State  when  you  first  saw  it,  and  what  condition  it 
was  then  in. 

J??.s. — The  first  time  I  saw  it  was  in  the  fall  of  1852.  I 
did  not  examine  it  particularly.  There  were  some  log  houses, 
and  what  is  called  the  corral,  for  the  purpose  of  catching 
wild  horses  and  cattle.  The  time  I  first  visited  it  a  beef  had 
just  been  killed,  and  I  bought  some  of  the  beef. 

Int.  4. — What  value  would  you  put  on  these  buildings  the 
first  time  you  saw  them  ? 

Anx. — The  buildings  I  saw  were  dilapidated  log  buildings, 
with  puncheon  floors,  very  rough.  I  do  not  think  they  were 
worth  over  $500 ;  corral  was  old  and  dilapidated. 

Int  5. — What  other  times  did  you  visit  the  post,  and  what 
changes  had  taken  place? 

Alls. — I  visited  the  post  again  in  1853,  1854,  and  1855.  I 
don't  remember  whether  there  were  any  changes  in  1853,  with 
the  exception  that  there  appeared  to  be  nobody  living  in  the 
houses,  and  the  man  from  whom  I  bought  beef,  who  was  a 
Frenchman,  I  think  his  name  is  Garnier,  I  met  in  the  first 
prairie  above  Scottsburg,  and  he  told  me  he  was  living  in  the 
said  prairie  about  two  and  a  half  miles  from  Scottsburg. 
When  I  was  back  in  1854  or  1855,  I  don't  remember  which, 
considerable  improvement  had  taken  place.  The  place  was 
not  then  in  possession  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  but  a 
man  by  the  name  of  Chapman  was  in  possession.  Both  the 
last  times  I  was  there,  I  saw  Mr.  Chapman's  s'^ns  at  work. 
The  buildings  all  looked  fresh,  as  if  they  had  L^en  just  put 
up.  There  Avas  some  fencing  at  the  latter  period  there.  I  saw 
no  fencing  when  I  was  there  first.  I  saw  no  cultivated  laml 
when  I  was  first  there. 

Int.  G. — What  opportunities  have  you  had  of  estimating  the 
value  of  lands  west  of  the  Kocky  mountains,  and  particularly 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Umpqua? 

Ans. — From  the  spring  of  1853  to  the  fall  of  1856  I  was 
the  owner  of  a  pack-train,  and  travelled  with  it  constantly 


359 


through  Oregon,  transporting  supplies  from  the  different  farms 
and  towns  in  northern  Oregon,  and  from  Scottshurg  tlirough 
Umpqua  Valley  to  Jacksonville,  Oregon,  and  to  Yreka,  Cali- 
fornia, or  I  was  transporting  supplies  for  the  Oregon  volun- 
teers i  i  the  Indian  wars.  Since  1850  I  have  been  engaged  in 
practising  law  in  Jackson  and  Umpqua  counties,  and  drawing 
deeds  for  parties  buying  lands.  I  have  bought  three  farms, 
one  in  Polk  county,  one  in  Umpqua  Valley,  now  Douglas 
county,  and  one  in  Jackson  county,  and  I  have  travelled 
through  Umpqua  Valley  two  or  three  times  every  year  since 
1852,  and  heard  men  price  their  lands  there. 

Int.  7. — Do  you  know  whether  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
claimed  any  land  around  their  post  at  Umpqua' 

Ans. — I  don't  know,  of  my  own  knowledge,  tliat  they  did. 
The  man  in  charge  of  the  place  claimed  the  corral  and  the 
cattle  as  belonging  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  statements  of  the  man  in  charge  as 
incompetent.) 

Int.  8. — Wiiat  was  the  value  of  a  tract  of  land  of  a  mile 
oi^uare  fronting  oti  Umpqua  river,  including  the  post  as  the 
centre,  or  nearly  so,  in  1852,  and  what  is  its  present  value? 

Ans. — I  think  in  1852  it  would  sell  from  somewhere  between 
$1,500  and  $2,000.  If  the  tract  of  land  was  run  up  the  river, 
so  as  to  include  the  prairie,  and  so  as  just  to  cover  the  house 
below,  it  would  get  much  better  land,  and  in  that  case  I  think 
it  would  be  worth  $2,000.  If  it  was  a  mile  square  with  the 
post  in  the  centre,  it  would  only,  I  think,  be  worth  $1,500. 
This  estimate  includes  all  the  buildings  and  improvements  that 
were  on  it  at  the  time.  I  don't  think  the  present  value  is  as 
much  as  it  was  in  1852  and  1853,  though  the  buildings  and 
improvements  are  worth  double  what  they  were  in  1852. 
Land  there  has  depreciated.  The  reason  of  this  is  that  Scotts- 
hurg has  not  increased  in  importance  as  was  expected. 

Int.  9. — Upon  what  particular  knowledge  do  you  found  this 
estimate  of  Umpqua? 

Ans. — I  know  of  two  tracts  of  land,  clo**^  by,  on  the  east 
side  of  the  river,  containing  320  acres  each,  that  belong  to 
Dr.  L.  S.  Thompson,  who  has  offered  to  sell  both  the  said 


'"** 


3«0 


m  mm 


1,  h:t^'- 


tracts  to  mo  for  $2,000.  Thoy  have  us  fjood  improvements  as 
the  land  at  Umpqua,  the  land.s  are  bettor,  and  tiic  location  is 
better. 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  this  answer  as  irrelevant  and  incom- 
petent.) 

Int.  10. — Have  you  ever  visited  Fort  Hall,  a  station  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  ?  If  so,  when?  Please  state  its  con- 
dition then. 

Ans. — I  visited  Fort  Hall  in  1H50.  It  was  a  large  fort, 
built  of  adobe  brick.  I  suppose  it  was  about  200  feet  square. 
There  were  buildings  inside  of  the  fort  on  the  corners  suitable 
for  a  storehouse  and  a  dwelling,  and  the  managing  agent  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  I  think  his  name  was  (J rant,  was 
living  there. 

Int.  11. — What  do  you  know  of  the  trade  at  Fort  Hall? 
Ans. — Our  company  sold  to  the  managing  agent  there  quite 
a  lot  of  dry  goods.     We  sold  the  goods  at  about  the  retail 
price  in  Missouri,  some  at  less.     They  had  scarcely  anything 
on  hand  at  the  post  to  sell.     We  were  three  days  selling  the 
goods.     The  only  trade  I  saw  except  what  we  sold,  some  of 
our  company  bought  a  horse  in  part  payment  for  the  goods  at 
$Q0,  the  pick  of  a  band  of  about  forty  or  fifty. 
Int.  12. — Did  you  see  any  cultivated  land  there? 
Ann. — I  did  not. 

Int.  13. — What  was  the  value  at  that  time  per  acre  of  laud 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Fort  Hall? 

Ans. — The  whole  country  was  vacant,  unappropriated  public 
lands  of  the  United  States.  There  was  no  settlement  at  that 
time  along  the  road  I  travelled  from  Fort  Laramie  to  Fort 
Hall,  except  a  little  post  occupied  by  the  United  State  troops 
about  five  miles  from  Fort  Hall.  Anybo<ly  could  take  the 
land  by  settling  on  it.  Nobody  would  do  it  at  that  time.  Right 
around  Fort  Hall  the  land  was  very  poor,  a  sandy  plain,  of 
no  value  except  as  a  trading  post. 

Int.  14. — What  do  you  know  of  the  station  of  thj  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  known  as  Walla-Walla? 

Ana. — I  visited  Fort  Walla-Walla  in  December,  1855,  in 
company  with  Colonel  Kelly's  command,  Indian  Agent  Olney, 


361 

an<l  Mr.  Sinclair,  the  agent  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 
And  last  year  I  saw  it  four  or  five  times. 

]M.  15. — Deserrbe  it  as  you  first  saw  it. 

Ans. — It  was  an  adobe  Fort,  very  much  like  Fort  Hall — had 
the  appearance  of  having;  been  recently  ransacked  by  the 
Indians. 

Int.  16. — What  would  you  estimate  to  have  been  the  value 
of  this  post? 

Ann. — I  should  say  it  would  not  have  sold  for  over  $2,000 
although  it  perhaps  cost  more. 

Int.  17. — Do  you  know  of  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  left  Fort  Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — All  I  know  on  this  subject  is  what  the  agent  of  the 
Company;  Mr.  Sinclair,  told  me.  I  don't  know  that  it  ever 
was  abandoned.  I  know  there  was  nobody  in  it  when  I  first 
went  there  in  1855,  and  the  property  had  the  appearance  of 
everything  being  taken  out. 

Int.  18. — What  did  Mr.  Sinclair  say  to  you  about  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  left  Fort 
Walla-Walla? 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  this  question  as  incompetent.) 

Ann. — lie  told  me  that  he  was  the  commander  of  the  post 
at  Walla- Walla  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  He  told  me 
the  reason  why  he  left  the  Fort  was  that  several  miners  trav- 
elling between  Oregon  and  Colvile  had  been  killed  by  the 
Indians,  that  Indians  had  reported  it  so  to  him,  and  a  short 
time  after  that,  Piupiumoxmox,  the  head  chief  of  the  Walla- 
Walla  Indians,  with  several  of  his  tribe,  came  to  the  Fort  and 
demanded  of  him  all  the  powder  he  had,  and  required  him  to 
send  for  more  powder  for  him.  He  said  he  told  Piupiumoxmox 
that  he  had  but  little,  and  what  little  he  had  he  wante<l  for  his 
own  defence.  He  said  he  suspicioned  that  he  wanted  to  make 
war  from  his  wanting  so  much,  and  Puipuimoxmox  threatened 
to  kill  him  if  he  did  not  let  him  have  all  the  powder  ho  had 
and  send  for  more  powder.  He  said  Piupiumoxmox  finally 
went  away  without  getitng  any  powder  or  doing  anything  but 
threatening  to  kill  him.  A  few  days  after  this  he  was  informed 
by  the  Indian  Agent  Olncy  that  Agent  Boleu  had  been  killed 


A 


i'v 


'  ..''■> 


f'^  ^M]} 


a'.i, 


1   ' 


362 

by  the  Yakama  Indians  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  river.  Ifc 
said  he  was  satisfied  from  these  two  facts  that  Piupiumoxunox 
and  Kaniaiakane  had  combined  together,  and  that  war  was  inev- 
itable, and  thej  had  to  leave  to  save  their  lives.  He  said,  to 
keep  the  Indians  from  using  the  powder  and  lead  against  the 
whites,  he  threw  all  the  powder  and  lead  he  had  into  the  river. 
Mr.  Sinclair  buried  his  one  or  two  howitzers  in  a  cache.  I 
sent  some  of  my  men  to  dig  them  up,  and  we  got  them.  Sev- 
eral Frenchmen  that  had  Indian  wives  and  farms  on  the  Walla- 
Walla  river,  lefL  and  went  to  the  Dalles.  Mr.  Sinclair  said  all 
the  Americans  and  Frenchmen  left  and  went  to  the  Dalles. 
Mr.  Sinclair  said  the  reason  he  did  not  take  his  things  with 
him  from  the  Fort,  was  that  he  did  not  have  transportation. 
He  did  not  have  time  to  gather  up  the  cattle. 

Int.  19. — Were  the  buildings  at  Fort  Walla-Walla  injuroil 
by  the  Indians  at  this  time? 

Ans. — No,  except  the  gates  and  doors  were  broken  open. 
I  went  to  the  Fort  among  the  first  after  the  Indians  had  sacked 
it.     I  went  there  with  Mr.  Sinclair  and  a  lot  of  soldiers. 

Int.  20. — What  was  the  character  and  value  of  the  lands 
about  Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — It  was  a  barren,  sandy  plain  of  but  little  value,  except 
the  fort.  There  is  a  town  there  now,  and  it  is  worth  a  good 
deal  more  now  than  it  was  then. 

( ^ross-Uxam  in  at  ion . 

Int.  1. — At  the  time  you  first  saw  Fort  Umpqua,  did  you 
put  a  value  on  the  buildings  you  then  saw  there? 

A71S. — I  dul  not. 

Int.  2. — Is  not  the  value  you  have  put  upon  it  a  value  made 
up  at  the  present  time? 

Ana. — No,  sir;  I  fixed  th'e  valuation  from  the  observation 
of  the  place  in  18r)4,  ami  from  my  general  knowledge  of  tin' 
price  of  the  property  iu  that  vicinity  m  lh.")2  and  1853;  and 
by  D*".  Thompson  tryinug  to  sell  hts  place,  and  not  doing  it. 

Int.  3. — Wliat  circumstance  caused  you  in  the  year  18-^ 
to  put  a  value  upou    hese  at  Cmp(|ua? 


"m 


value  mailc 


observation 


303 

Ann. — I  was  told  by  somobocly,  I  don't  remcrabor  who,  that 
somebody  had  jumped  the  Hudson  Bay  Company's  claim  at 
Umpqua,  and  1  got  to  studying  how  much  he  had  made  by  so 
doing. 

Int.  4. — Were  there  stockades  surrounding  the  buildinss  at 
Umpqua  when  you  saw  it  first? 

Ans. — I  think  there  was. 

Int.  5. — Do  you  include  the  stockades  and  bastions  in  your 
valuation? 

Ana. — I  don't  think  I  considered  the  stockades  worth  any- 
thing at  that  time,  as  the  citizens  were  living  in  the  valley 
without  any  stockades;  I  did  not  consider  the  stockades  worth 
anything,  but  for  the  wood. 

Int.  G. — Do  you  recollect  a  dwelling-house  there  when  you 
first  saw  it? 

Ans. — Yes,  there  was  a  dwelling-house  there. 

Int.  7. — Do  you  now  restate  what  you  paid  in  your  exami- 
iiation-in-chief  in  reference  to  those  buildings  the  first  time 
you  saw  them? 

A)is. — I  do;  I  did  not  examine  the  Fort  at  Umpqua  particu- 
larly; I  went  over  to  get  some  beef,  and  got  it;  I  went  over 
from  my  camp  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  river  in  siglit  of  the 
fort,  about  a  half  a  mile  distant.  I  saw  they  were  killng  a 
beef,  and  then  went  over. 

Jnt.  8. — What  office  did  you  fill  when  you  visited  Fort 
Walla-Walla  with  Colonel  Kelly? 

Ans. — I  was  the  owner  of  the  transportation  animals,  and 
bud  the  management  of  the  transportation. 

Int.  1). — Which  was  the  larger  fort,  Fort  Hall  or  Fort  Walla- 
Walla? 

An.^. — I  don't  know  that  there  was  any  difference  in  the 
size  of  them. 

Inf.  10. — Which  in  your  opinion  cost  the  most  to  build? 

A  Hi. — 1  think  Fort  Walla-Walla  cost  the  most. 

Int.  11. — What  in  your  opinion  would  be  the  difference  in 
tlie  cost  of  those  two  forts? 

Anfi. — I  !*ln)uld  suppose  there  was  not  much  difference  in 
tl«;  actual  labor  of  building,  but  my  impression  from  my  knowl- 


i 

i 


r  ill 

,  1 

li-ni'^' 


I! 


ii  4  1 


uti 


3G4 

ccI;^o  of  Indians  is  that  it  would  cost  more  at  Fort  Hall  to 
build,  as  the  Indians  there  were  not  so  good  to  work  as  the 
the  Indians  about  Walla-Walla;  I  suppose  the  labor  was  mostly 
done  by  Indians  and  Frenchnicn ;  I  understand  the  adobes 
are  made  out  of  the  natural  turf  of  the  prairies,  ploughed  up 
with  either  horses  or  oxen,  and  then  put  right  on  the  walls 
without  over  being  burnt  at  all;  the  walls  are  2  or  2J  feet 
thick;  the  adobes  have  no  appearance  of  being  burnt;  they 
make  a  pretty  comfortable  house. 

Int.  12. — Was  not  a  portion  of  the  fort  at  Walla-Walla 
still  used  and  occupied  when  you  was  there  last? 

A)m. — I  know  a  portion  of  the  house  was;  and  probably 
the  whole  of  the  old  storehouse  was  standing. 

Int.  \?». — Did  not  in  your  opinion  the  fort  at  Walla- Walla 
cost  much  more  than  the  $2,000  you  have  estimated  it  at,  in 
your  answ(!r  to  interrogatory  16? 

Ans. — I  do  think  so;  I  don't  think  you  could  put  up  an 
adobe  house  such  as  that  for  $2,000  now,  but  I  could  put  up 
a  brick  house  or  a  wooden  house  for  $2,000  that  I  would 
rather  have. 

lilt.  14. — Can  you  estimate  the  cost  of  this  building  at  all, 
with  a  wall  of  over  a  hundred  feet  square,  with  all  its  build- 
ings inside  ? 

Ann. — I  have  no  way  of  estimating  the  cost  of  such  a  build- 
ing, because  I  never  saw  anything  like  it  put  up,  and  of  course 
could  only  conjecture  as  to  the  amount  of  labor  it  would  take. 
I  could  tell  no  more  as  to  the  number  of  days  it  would  take, 
than  as  to  the  number  of  days  it  took  to  put  up  any  of  the 
forts  I  saw  at  Arlington  yesterday. 

Int.  15. — How  long  were  you  at  Fort  Walla-Walla,  itself, 
and  under  what  circumstances? 

Ans. — The  first  time  I  was  there,  I  was  there  about  three 
hours;  the  next  day  I  was  there  all  day,  shooting  at  the  In- 
dians across  the  river ;  the  next  time  I  was  there,  I  was  there 
two  or  three  hours,  looking  round ;  ten  or  twelve  days  after- 
wards I  rode  by  and  never  stopped  at  all ;  in  the  spring  fol- 
lowing, in  lSf)6,  we  camped  near  there,  and  was  lack  and 
forth  several  times ;  I  was  there  again  in  1865  and  1866. 


ralla-Walla 


365 

Int.  IG. — At  the  time  you  were  there  in  18GG,  did  you  land 
at  tlic  town  of  Wallula? 

Ans. — I  did. 

Int.  17. — Were  there  many  goods  landed  at  Wallula  from 
the  steamer  in  which  you  came  up? 

Ann. — I  saw  hut  little  goods  landed,  but  there  was  a  good 
supply  of  goods  in  the  town;  I  have  no  doubt  they  were  all 
landed  there. 

Int.  18. — How  many  times  a  Aveek  did  steamers  from  below 
stop  at  Wallula  ? 

Am. — I  think  they  were  running  three  times  a  week. 

Int.  19. — Did  the  steamers  go  higher  up  the  river? 

Ans. — The  steamer  I  was  on  went  above ;  they  said  were 
going  to  Lewiston. 

Int.  20. — Are  not  corrals  used  as  well  for  tame  as  wild 
animals? 

Ans. — They  are. 

r>.  F.  DOWELL. 
March  11,  1SG7. 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  JIu<hon''s  Bay  (Jompanij  ar/atmt 

the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  Edward  J.  AT.r.EX,  a  witness  produced  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States,  and  examined  at  Washington 
city,  this  23d  day  of  February,  A.  D.  18G7,  by  virtue  of 
an  agreement  between  C.  (J.  Beaman,  counsel  for  the  United 
States,  and  Edward  Lander,  counsel  for  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company. 

Testimony  of  Edward  J.  Allen. 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  residence,  and  occupation  ? 

Ans. — Edward  J.  Allen,  Pittsburg,  Pennsylvania,  secretary 
and  treasurer  of  the  Pacific  and  Atlantic  Telegraph  Company 
of  the  United  States. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  ever  visited  Fort  Boise,  a  post  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 


M-'^ 


h 


£xm 

i  , 

1  BnSJl'^ 

1  '^M| 

\     ■  i 

1 

rlii 

■ 

iMffln 

H 

:/, 

i 

rm 

(r 
'j 

j!    ::  * 


806 

An», — I  have. 

Int.  3. — State  when  you  visited  it,  how  long  you  rca^ained, 
and  under  what  circumstanccH. 

Ann. — I  visited  it  in  the  Hummer  of  1852 ;  ^'  '  cmained  there 
about  a  month  ;  I  passed  there  as  an  emigrant,  and  remained 
ferrying  there. 

Int.  4. — What  was  tlic  condition  of  the  fort  at  that  time? 

Ans. — Very  diLapidated,  ruinous. 

Int.  5. — What  Avau  the  value  of  the  buildings? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  for  what  purpose  they  Avould  have  any 
value;  the  value  would  be  so  slight  it  Avould  be  difficult  to 
estimate  it. 

Int.  6. — How  was  that  fort  occupied  ? 

Ans. — By  one  white  man  in  charge,  an  employe  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Int.  7. — What  was  the  value  of  the  trade  at  this  post  ? 

Ans. — I  saw  no  trading  transaction  at  all,  while  I  was  there 
in  furs ;  the  employe  in  charge  told  me  the  trade  had  dwindled 
away  to  almost  nothing;  that  the  value  of  the  furs  brought 
there  did  not  pay  his  compensation  ;  the  Indians  there  were 
in  an  impoverished  condition ;  they  died  in  great  numbers 
while  I  was  there ;  in  such  great  numbers  that  their  bodies 
were  piled  up  and  burnt  by  the  employe  in  charge;  I  was 
assured  by  the  employe  in  charge  that  the  few  furs  obtained 
were  of  very  poor  quality ;  I  so  thought  on  seeing  some  of 
the  furs. 

(Statement  of  employe  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Int.  8. — State  whether  or  no  you  saw  any  cattle  or  culti- 
vated lands  about  the  post  belonging  to  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company. 

Ans. — I  never  heard  any  claim  made  to  cattle  there  by  the 
Company,  except  that  I  think  the  employe  in  charge  bought 
some  cattle  that  had  been  brought  there  by  emigrants,  auu 
were  broken  down.     I  saw  no  cultivated  lands  there. 

Cross-Examination. 

Int.  1. — Are  you  the  same  Edward  J.  Allen  who  testified  in 
the  case  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company? 


307 

Ann. — I  am. 

Lit.  2. — What  time  in  the  summer  of  1852  were  you  at  Fort 
Boise  ? 

Au8. — About  mid-summer. 

Int.  -3. — Wliat  was  the  name  of  the  person  you  have  spoken 
of  as  telling  you  there  were  few  furs  and  of  poor  quality? 

Aiis. — I  don't  recall  his  name;  I  have  it  in  published  letters 
describing  that  place,  but  I  have  forgotten  it  now. 

Int.  4. — Was  he  a  white  man? 

Ans. — lie  was  a  Scotchman.     That  is  my  recollection. 

Int.  5. — How  many  bodies  of  Indians  did  you  see  piled  up 
at  any  one  time  and  burned? 

Ann. — I  can't  recall  the  number.  I  saw,  I  think,  twenty  or 
thirty  dead,  left  unburied,  and  some  they  had  disposed  of. 
The  stench  was  insupportable.  I  did  not  get  near  enough  to 
count  them. 

Int.  G. — How  many  of  these  burnings  did  you  see  during  the 
month  you  were  at  Boise? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  how  many ;  it  was  all  done  in  a 
day  or  two. 

Int.  0. — How  many  bodies  were  piled  together  and  burning 
at  once? 

Ans. — I  don't  know ;  I  did  not  got  near  enough  to  count 
them. 

Int.  8. — What  wood  was  there  in  the  country  that  he  could 
and  did  use  for  this  purpose? 

Ans. — He  used  quantities  of  willow  that  grows  there,  and 
burns  with  a  very  fragrant  smell. 

Int.  9. — Is  not  this  willow  a  small  tree,  properly  called  a 
bush  ? 

Ans. — Yes ;  I  guess  it  is  more  properly  called  a  bush. 

Int.  10. — What  is  the  width  of  the  river  at  this  point  ? 

Ans. — Between  a  quarter  and  half  a  mile. 

Int.  11. — Were  you  not  on  the  other  side  of  the  stream  of 
this  river  during  the  time  of  the  burning  of  Indians? 

Ans. — I  w^as  on  both  sides,  backwards  and  forwards. 

Int.  12. — To  what  do  you  attribute  this  sickness  of  the 
Indians  ? 
24  H 


.^^ 
'^^ 

.0..  ^.%^ 

^ 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


1.1 


ltt|21    125 
■<<  l&i  ■2.2 

£  »&   120 


L25  IHU  116 


I 


Fhotographic 

Sdmces 

CorparatiQn 


■$-> 


c\ 


3;i  WMT  MAIN  STRHT 
(7U)ft/i-4S03 


<s 


i 


368 

Ans. — Generally,  to  their  degraded,  filthy  habits,  and  more 
immediately  to  eating  cattle  that  had  died  on  the  plains. 

Int.  13. — Was  there  not  in  the  river  at  that  time  an  abund- 
ance of  salmon  in  good  order,  the  usual  food  of  the  Indians  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know. 

Int.  14. — Have  you  not  a  short  time  since  stated,  in  con- 
versation, that  the  salmon  were  so  thick  in  the  river  that  they 
did  not  get  out  of  the  way  of  your  ferry-boat  ? 

Ans. — No. 

Int.  15. — State  what  you  did  say  in  reference  to  salmon  in 
the  river. 

Ans. — I  saw  multitudes  of  salmon  in  the  river  in  such  a 
diseased  condition  that  they  were  rotten.  I  saw  the  Indians 
catch  those  fish,  and  I  believe  they  ate  them.  They  were  so 
weak  and  diseased  as  to  be  readily  caught  by  the  hand  and 
struck  by  an  oar. 

Int.  16. — Was  not  the  flesh  upon  these  salmon  firm,  and  did 
they  not  afford  an  excellent  article  of  food? 

Atis. — No. 

Int.  17. — Was  the  flesh  in  such  condition  that  pieces  of  it 
would  iall  off  the  fish  while  it  was  alive  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  it  was. 

Int.  18. — Did  this  person  whom  you  say  was  in  charge,  him- 
self, personally,  assist  in  burning  Indians  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  he  did. 

Int.  14. — Did  the  Indians  themselves  assist  in  it  ? 

Ans. — He  had  some  assistance ;  I  don't  know  whether  it 
was  Indians  or  half-breeds  ? 

Int.  20 — How  many  half-breeds  were  there  at  the  time? 

Ans. — I  don't  know. 

Int.  21. — How  many  men  were  there  employed  in  the  fort? 

Ans. — I  think  but  the  one,  the  white  man. 

Int.  22. — What  were  the  half-breeds  doing  there  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know.  '  * 

Int.  23. — Did  you  see  more  than  one  half-breed  at  Fort 
Bois^  at  that  time  ? 

Ans, — I  don't  remember. 

Int.  24. — Did  you  see  one  half-breed? 


369 


nd  more 
ns. 

1  abund- 
[ndians  ? 

I,  in  con- 
that  they 


almon  in 

in  such  a 
e  Indians 
y  were  so 
hand  and 

m,  and  did 


leces  01  It 
large,  him- 

whether  it 
LC  time? 
n  the  fort  ? 

ed  at  Fort 


Ans. — I  think  there  was  a  half-breed  there,  but  I  don't 
distinctly  remember. 

Int.  25. — Is  this  single  white  man  whom  you  saw  about  the 
fort  the  one  who  made  the  statements  you  detailed  in  your 
examination-in-chief?, 

Ans. — Yes,  he  was. 

Int.  2G. — Do  you  feel  certain  there  was  but  one  white  man 
at  the  fort  while  vou  were  there  ? 

Ans. — I  remember  seeing  but  one  white  man  who  belonged 
to  the  fort ;  there  were  emigrants  passing  by. 

Edward  J.  Allen. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me  this  29th  day  of  May,  1867. 

N.  CALL  AN, 

Notary  Public. 

District  of  Columbia,  \ 
County  'of  Waslnngton.  / 

I,  Sauiuci  II.  Huntington,  Clerk  of  the  United  States  Court 
of  Claims,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  depositions 
hereto  attached  of  Alexander  Gardner,  Charles  T.  Gardner, 
Simpson  P.  Moses,  William  Gilpin,  Francis  Hudson,  James 
G.  Swan,  Titian  R.  Peale,  Benjamin  Alvord,  and  B.  F.  Dow- 
ell,  and  the  direct  examination  of  Edward  J.  Allen,  witnesses 
produced  by  and  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  in  the  matter 
of  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the 
United  States,  now  pending  before  the  British  and  American 
Joint  Commission  for  the  final  adjustment  of  the  same  thereof, 
were  taken  at  the  city  of  Washington,  and  reduced  to  writing 
under  my  direction  by  a  person  agreed  upon  by  Charles  C. 
Bcaman,  Jr.,  Esq.,  attorney  for  the  United  States,  and  Ed- 
ward Lander,  Esq.,  attorney  for  said  Company,  beginning  on 
the  30th  day  of  January,  1867,  and  ending  on  the  IGth  day 
of  March,  1867,  according  to  the  several  dates  appended  to 
said  depositions  when  they  were  signed  respectively. 

I  fur'^her  certify  that  to  each  of  said  witnesses,  before  hia 
examination,  I  administered  the  following  oath: 

"You  swear  that  the  evidence  you  shall  givo  in  the  matter 
of  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  Uui- 


370 

ted  States  of  America  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth.  So  help  you  God."  That  after  the 
same  was  reduced  to  writing,  the  deposition  of  each  witness 
was  carefully  read  over,  and  then  signed  by  him. 

I  furtlier  certify  that  Charles  C.  Beaman,  Jr.,  Esq.,  and 
Edward  Lander,  Esq.,  were  personally  present  during  the 
examination  of  all  of  said  witnesses,  and  the  reading  and 
signing  of  their  depositions. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  the 
official  seal  of  said  Court,  at  Washington,  this  twenty- 
[l.  s.]  sixth  day  of  June,  A.  D.  1867. 

Sam'l  H.  Huntington, 

Cleric  of  the  Court  of  Claims. 


mm 


371 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  ITucIsoh's  Bay  Company 
against  the  United  Slates. 

Deposition  of  William  B.  McMurtrie,  witness  examined  on 
behalf  of  the  United  States,  at  Washington  city,  D.  C, 
this  2d  day  of  May,  18G7. 

Testimony  of  William  B.  McMurtrie. 


Int.  1. — State  your  name,  residence,  and  occupation  ? 

Ans. — William  B.  McMurtrie;  hydrographic  draughtsman, 
Coast  Survey  ;  Washington  city,  D.  C. 

Int.  2. — Did  you  ever  visit  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river? 
If  so,  state  when,  and  under  what  circumstances  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  several  times.  In  1850,  in  the  spring,  was  my 
first  visit  there;  visited  there  for  several  years  following.  I 
was  hydrographic  draughtsman  to  the  United  States  Coast 
Survey,  surveying  from  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river  to 
Tongue  point,  above  Astoria. 

Int.  3. — Did  you  ever  visit  Cape  Disappointment? 

Ans. — Yes,  several  times. 

Int.  4. — Look  at  this  map,  marked  "A,"  annexed  to  your 
deposition,  entitled  "Mouth  of  the  Columbia  River,"  &c., 
published  in  1851,  and  state  if  you  know  under  what  circum- 
stances it  was  prepared,  and  by  whom. 

A)is. — This  preliminary  survey  was  commenced  by  the  Uni- 
ted States  Coast  Survey,  by  the  hydrographic  party  under 
command  of  William  P.  McArthur,  lieutenant  of  the  United 
States  Navy  and  assistant  in  the  United  States  Coast  Survey. 
It  was  prepared  in  the  spring  and  summer  of  1850,  for  better 
knowledge  of  the  entrance  and  channel  of  the  said  river. 

Int.  5. — Were  you  connected  with  the  surveying  party  which 
made  this  chart? 

Ans. — I  was. 

Int.  6. — Will  you  describe  Cape  Disappointment? 

Ans. — It  is  a  bold  headland,  northern  side  of  the  Columbia 
river,  the  boldest  portion  of  that  coast  for  some  miles.     It  is 


372 

covered  with  pines,  almost  from  the  water's  edge  to  the  crest 
of  the  hills  or  bluffs;  McKcnzie's  Head  being  an  exception,  as 
having  no  trees  upon  it.  The  height  of  these  bluffs  or  head- 
lands at  Cape  Disappointment  gradually  falls  off  in  elevation 
to  the  northward. 

Int.  7. — Will  you  describe  certain  marks  which  appear  on 
the  map  of  this  Cape  shown  you? 

Ans. — The  shaded  portions  of  this  survey  indicate  slopings 
or  depressions,  the  darkest  portion  representing  the  steeper  or 
more  abrupt  portions  of  the  land;  the  white  indicate  the  high- 
est portions  of  the  elevations.  The  low-water  mark  or  sand- 
beach,  by  fine  dotted  lines;  the  six-feet  curves  of  water 
represented  by  single  dotted  lines;  the  twelve-feet  curves,  by 
two  dots,  and  the  space  and  two  dots  again,  and  so  on  con- 
tinuing, the  two  dots  being  for  two  fathoms ;  and  then  three 
dots  again  represent  three  fathoms.  The  pine  trees  are  rep- 
resented by  star-shaped  points,  other  trees  by  points  of  round 
edges  in  clusters. 

Int.  8. — What  was  the  character  of  the  entrance  of  the 
Columbia  river? 

Ans. — It  consists  of  immense  shoals  or  sand-bars,  which  are 
constantly  shifting,  the  north  and  south  channels  working 
their  way  through  these  shoals  or  sand-bars;  Avhich  channels 
are  shifted  more  to  the  northward  or  southward  as  these  shoals 
or  sand-bars  are  removed  by  currents  or  winds.  The  channels 
seldom,  if  ever,  lead  in  the  same  direction  for  two  successive 
seasons.  For  sailing-vessels,  the  entrance  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Columbia  river  is  considered  dangerous. 

Int.  9. — What  advantage  is  a  light-house  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Columbia? 

Ans. — The  only  advantage  of  a  light-house  at  Cape  Disap- 
pointment is  for  vessels  to  hold  on  to  their  position  during  the 
night. 

Int.  10. — Did  you  ever  visit  any  post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  on  this  Cape  ? 

Ans. — I  visited  a  house  fronting  on  Baker's  Bay,  I  should 
think  a  mile  or  more  from  the  point  of  the  Cape,  which  was  said  to 
have  belonged  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  by  a  man  who  lived 


373 


U 


there,  who  was  left  in  charge.  The  house  was  some  distance 
beyond  the  filled-in  porHon  of  the  topographical  drawing  rep- 
resented on  this  chart  or  map.  This  house,  I  should  think, 
was  about  thirty  feet  in  length  by  about  twenty  in  width  or 
depth.  It  was  situated  on  sloping  ground  fronting  Baker's 
Bay,  built,  I  think,  of  logs  or  hewn  timber;  I  think  not  more 
than  one  story  high. 

Int.  11. — What  do  you  estimate  to  have  been  the  value  of 
this  building  ? 

Ans. — I  should  think  it  could  not  have  cost  more  than  three 
or  four  hundred  dollars. 

Int.  12. — Was  there  any  cultivated  ground  about  this  build- 


ing: 


An8. — I  did  not  notice  any. 

Int.  13. — Whether  or  no  you  saw  any  other  buildings  on  the 
Cape? 

Ans. — I  did  not  see  any  others. 

Int.  14. — Did  you  see  any  land  on  the  Cape  which  appeared 
to  have  been  cultivated  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not. 

Int.  15. — Who  was  in  charge  of  this  building? 

Ans. — A  man  whom  I  took  to  be  a  half-breed,  whose  name 
I  have  forgotten.  I  saw  at  one  time  another  person  with  him 
in  front  of  the  premises,  whom  I  took  to  be  a  half-breed. 
Sometimes  I  saw  a  few  Indians,  probably  curious  as  to  our 
proceedings. 

Int.  16. — What  was  the  value  of  the  land  on  the  Cape  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  think  there  was  any  value  to  be  attached  to 
it  at  all,  because  it  could  not  be  cultivated  except  in  such  a 
circumscribed  space  as  to  make  it  valueless. 

Int.  17. — Did  you  ever  visit  Astoria,  on  the  Columbia  river? 

Ans. — Yes,  frequently. 

Int.  18. — Whether  or  no  you  ever  saw  there  a  post  or  any 
buildings  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  saw  a  building  there  said  to  belong  to  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  used  as  a  store-house.  This  building  was,  I 
should  think,  about  sixty  feet  in  length,  twenty-five  or  thirty- 
feet  in  depth  or  width;  I  think  it  was  built  of  squared  timber; 


w 


I 


i 


m 

■l:';'H 

U-4 


4-Ji 


til 


I 


374 

I  never  yras  in  it.  It  appeared  to  have  been  built  some  time. 
There  were  several  other  houses,  small  frame  houses  and  log 
houses,  in  the  vicinity  of  said  store-house,  occupied  by  persons 
said  to  be  employed  in  the  service  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany. 

Cro%s-Exam  in  at  ion . 

Int.  1. — Have  you  any  acquaintance  of  the  cost  of  putting 
up  buildings  in  Oregon,  or  have  you  ever  superintended  the 
erection  of  any  buildings  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  knowledge  of  the  cost  of  erecting  buildings 
in  Oregon,  excepting  through  the  information  derived  from 
others ;  and  I  have  never  superintended  the  erection  of  any 
buildings. 

Wm.  B.  McMurtrie. 


In  the  matter  of  the   Claim  of  the  Hudson  %  Bay  Covipamj 

against  the  United  States.  % 

Deposition  of  Commander  William  Gibson,  a  witness  exam- 
ined on  behalf  of  the  United  States  by  agreement  between 
Mr.  C.  C.  Beaman,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  and 

^  Mr.  Edward  Lander,  on  the  part  of  the  lludson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, this  22d  day  of  May,  1867,  at  Washington  city,  D.  C. 

Testimony  of  William  Gibson. 

Int.  1. — State  your  name,  residence,  and  occupation. 

Ans. — William  Gibson  ;  Commander  in  the  United  States 
Navy ;  now  stationed  in  Washington,  D.  C. 

Int.  2. — Were  you  ever  at  Cape  Disappointment,  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Columbia  river?  If  so,  state  when,  and  in 
what  particular  service  ? 

Ans. — I  was  at  Cape  Disappointment  in  the  summer  of 
1850.    I  was  engaged  at  that  time  in  the  survey  of  the  mouth 


375 


of  the  Columbia  river,  as  a  passed  midshipman  on  boarcf  the 
schooner  Ewing,  in  a  party  commanded  by  Lieut.  McArthur. 

Int.  3. — Look  at  the  map,  now  shown  you,  entitled  "Mouth 
of  the  Columbia  lliver,"  &c.,  published  in  1851,  to  be  marked 
"A,"  and  to  be  attached  to  your  deposition,  and  state  what 
particular  marks  on  this  map  were  made  from  your  particular 
observation. 

Ans. — Perhaps  a  majority  of  the  soundings  ;  in  addition  to 
which  I  computed  the  triangulations. 

Int.  4. — Will  you  describe  Capo  Disappointment? 

Ans. — It  was  a  promontory  of  columnar  basalt,  with  steep 
escarpments  on  the  south  and  west,  more  sloping  on  the  east- 
ern side  towards  the  small  cove ;  heavily  timbered  on  its  crest, 
with  tangled  undergrowth,  grass,  bushes,  and  creepers.  It  is 
rocky,  with  a  thin  soil  in  most  places.  I  visited  it  several 
times. 

Int.  5. — Whether  or  no  there  were  any  signs  of  cultivation 
or  occupation  of  the  part  of  this  Cape  figured  on  the  map? 

Ans. — No  signs  of  cultivation  that  I  observed,  and  no  signs 
of  occupation,  except  one  man  living  in  a  solitary  house,  a 
little  to  the  northward  of  the  cove — whether  on  or  beyond  the 
figured  portion  of  the  map  I  cannot  say,  and  one  or  two  boats 
in  the  cove. 

Int.  G. — What  would  you  say  of  the  value  of  the  land  on 
Cape  Disappointment  ? 

Ans. — It  is  valueless,  except  for  its  timber;  the  whole  of 
this  portion  of  Oregon  being  also  richly  wooded  with  spruce, 
fir,  hemlock,  and  cedar. 

Int.  7. — Please  describe  the  house  you  have  referred  to  as 
a  little  to  the  northward  of  the  cove. 

Ans. — To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  it  was  a  small  frame- 
house,  perhaps  twenty  feet  front,  short  two  stories  or  a  story 
and  a  half  high,  with  two  rooms  on  a  floor.  I  slept  in  it  one 
night ;  it  was  occupied  by  one  man,  but  was  nearly  bare  of 
furniture.     I  saw  no  cultivated  land  about  the  house. 

Int.  8. — Whether  or  no  there  were  any  signs  of  the  use  of 
this  house  as  a  trading-post  ? 
Ans. — I  saw  none. 


i 

t 


I^VItlllJ.V. 


376 


Int.  0. — What  would  you  estimate  to  have  been  the  cost  and 
value  of  this  house  ? 

Ann. — A  few  hundred  dollars  ;  not  exceeding  five. 

Int.  10. — Whether  or  not  you  saw  any  other  houses  on  Cape 
Disappointment  than  the  one  you  have  described? 

Am. — To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  I  saw  no  other  house. 

Int.  11. — What  do  you  know  of  the  channels  and  the  en- 
trance at  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river,  and  the  importance 
of  ligiit-houses  at  Capo  Disappointment  and  Point  Adams? 

Ana. — Except  in  very  light  win<ls,  the  breakers  are  heavy, 
in  a  horse-shoe  form,  across  the  whole  mouth  of  the  Columbia; 
the  current  of  the  river  is  strong,  and  the  channels  arc  there- 
fore continually  shifting.  At  the  time  of  our  survey,  in  18.30, 
the  south  channel  Avas  the  shoalest,  though  with  seventeen  and 
a  half  feet  at  low-water  on  the  bar.  It  was  also  the  shortest 
and  the  most  direct,  also  the  one  used  by  all  vessels  at  that 
time,  with  the  solitary  exception  of  the  United  States  steamer 
Massachusetts,  which  on  one  occasion  went  out  the  north 
channel.  The  northern  channel  was  the  deepest,  but  was 
much  the  longest,  with  many  sharp  elbows  to  turn  in  order  to 
reach  Astoria  and  the  channel  up  the  river.  Sailing-vessels 
would  also  have  to  beat  up  to  Cape  Disappointment  from  the 
bar  of  this  channel  against  the  prevailing  winds.  I  think  a 
light-house  on  Cape  Disappointment  important  for  vessels  ap- 
proaching the  river  to  make  and  hold  on  by;  but  a  light-house 
with  a  beacon  range  on  Point  Adams  I  consider  of  much 
greater  importance,  as  this  would  enable  vessels  to  run  in  the 
south  channel  at  night,  if  the  position  of  the  beacon  were 
changed  from  time  to  time  with  the  shifting  of  the  bar. 

Cross- Examination — May  27,  1867. 


Int.  1. — By  what  party  was  the  map  shown  to  you  in  this 
examination  made,  and  who  was  in  charge  of  the  party? 

Ans. — By  a  party  of  naval  officers  and  seamen,  in  the  Coast 
Survey  schooner  Ewing,  Lieutenant  Commanding  William  P. 
McArthur  in  charge. 


377 


Int.  2. — Do  you  know  anything  of  the  fortification  or  bat- 
tery on  Cape  Disappointment  ? 

Ans. — I  <lo  n  't. 

Int.  3. — Do  ;  lu  know  anything  of  the  navigation  of  the 
mouth  of  the  river  since  1850? 

Ans. — Nothing. 

Int.  4. — Did  not,  in  your  time,  the  passengcr-stcaniors  draw- 
ing any  great  depth  of  water — such  as  the  Panama,  the  Oregon, 
the  California — go  through  the  northern  channel  passing  in 
and  out  of  the  river? 

Ans. — I  don't  know.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  but  one  vessel 
using  that  passage  in  coming  out;  it  was  the  United  States 
steamer  Massachusetts,  with  the  rifle  regiment  on  board.  Sho 
chose  that  passage,  I  was  informed,  on  account  of  her  draught 
of  water,  and  on  account  of  the  roughness  of  the  sea,  which 
broke  in  seven  fathoms. 

Int.  5. — During  the  time  vou  were  at  the  mouth  of  the 

o  V 

Columbia  river,  was  or  was  not  the  passenger-steamer  a  small 
steamer  of  about  600  tons,  called  the  Columbia  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember ;  at  all  events,  she  was  not  run- 
ning while  we  were  engaged  on  that  survey.  There  was  no 
passenger-steamer  running  at  that  time. 

Int.  7. — What,  in  your  opinion,  would  be  the  value  to  the 
United  States  of  a  mile  square  of  land  used  for  the  purpose 
of  building  a  light-house  and  placing  a  fort  so  as  to  command 
the  entrance  of  one  of  the  channels  of  the  only  navigable 
river  in  a  thousand  miles  of  coast? 

Ans. — I  consider  a  light-house  on  Cape  Disappointment  im- 
portant for  vessels,  to  make,  even  if  they  do  not  use,  the  north 
channel.  A  fortification  in  that  location,  at  the  mouth  of  so 
great  a  river,  is  also  very  important.  I  cannot  estimate  its 
value  numerically,  which  depends,  I  should  think,  upon  many 
circumstances,  including  its  value  to  the  party  holding  or 
claiming  it. 

Int.  8. — How  long  were  you  at  this  house  which  you  have 
described,  to  the  northward  of  the  Cape,  in  which  you  slept 
one  night ;  what  time  in  the  day  did  you  arrive  there,  and 
what  time  did  you  leave  ? 


i 


378 


Ana. — Wo  arrived  there  in  the  afternoon,  in  a  hoat  that  wo 
were  in,  a  good  while  hcfore  dark ;  I  do  not  remember  prc- 
ciacly  how  long.  The  crew  deserted,  with  the  boat,  durinf» 
the  night,  and  about  7  or  8  o'clock  in  the  morning  the  man 
who  lived  in  the  house  lent  us  a  boat,  in  which  wo  left  for  the 
vessel.  I  never  noticed  the  'iouse  particularly  at  any  other 
time. 

Int.  0. — Were  you  there  at  any  other  time,  to  make  any 
stay  whatever  ? 

Ans. — I  was  ashore  on  Cape  Disappointment  several  times, 
but  never  was  at  the  house  any  other  time. 

Int.  10. — Did  you  at  the  time  of  this  visit  go  off  the  beach 
into  the  country  back  of  the  house  ? 

Ana. — Not  to  any  distance. 

Int.  11. — What  distance  did  you  go,  and  in  what  direction 
from  the  beach  ? 

Ana. — I  strolled  about  the  vicinity  of  the  house  in  various 

directions.     I  had  no  observations  to  make  except  on  Cape 

Disappointment  and  in  the  cove. 

William  Gibson, 

Commander,  U.  S.  Navy. 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim   of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
against  the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  Major  General  Gordon  Granger,  witness  pro- 
duced on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  this  29th  day  of 
May,  1867,  at  Washington  city,  D.  C. 

Testimony  op  Maj.  Gen.  Gordon  Granger. 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  residence,  and  present  occupa- 
tion? 

Ans. — Gordon  Granger;  Colonel  and  Brevet  Major  General, 
United  States  Army ;  residence,  New  York  city. 

Int.  2. — Are  you  acquainted  with  Fort  Hall,  a  post  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  ?  ' 

Ans. — I  was  there  frequently  from  about  the  1st  of  August, 
1849,  until  June,  1850,  while  stationed  at  Cantonment  Loring, 
about  four  miles  distant,  being  then  a  Lieutenant  and  Brevet 


lat  direction 


879 

Captain  in  tlio  Regiment  of  Mounted  Riflemen.  I  was  there 
(luring  this  interval  at  least  fifty  times. 

Int.  3. — Will  you  describe  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's 
post  known  as  Fort  Hall  ? 

Ans. — The  post  proper  was  a  parallelogram  of  about  ir)0 
feet  in  depth  by  7o  to  100  in  width,  built  of  adobe.  The  walls 
of  the  front  portion,  as  near  as  I  can  remember,  contained  two 
buildings,  the  whole  height  of  which  was  from  fifteen  to  twenty 
feet.  One  was  about  twenty  feet  scjuare,  the  other  longer. 
The  upper  story  of  one  of  them  was  used  as  a  dwelling  by 
Captain  Grant,  the  Company's  officer  in  charge;  the  other 
building  was  used  as  stables  and  store-rooms.  The  outer  walls 
of  this  portion  of  the  fort  were  about  twelve  feot  in  hei^lit, 
the  walls  of  the  fort  forming  the  back  wall  of  the  buildings,  us 
high  up  as  it  went.  There  were  other  suiaH  buildings  within 
this  enclosure,  used  for  various  purposes,  such  as  blac!  ..lith's 
shop,  servants'  q''n'r!rs,  &c.,  very  small,  and  would  not  be 
considered  fit  for  civilized  people  to  inhabit.  To  the  rear  the 
walls  extended  back  towards  the  Snake  river,  forming  a  yard. 
These  walls  were  from  four  to  six  feet  in  height,  and  a  foot  to 
a  foot  and  a  half  in  thickness. 

Int.  4. — Were  there  any  other  buildings  outside  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect  anything  outside  these  walls. 

Int.  5. — What  was  the  condition  of  this  fort  when  you  saw  it? 

Ans. — The  outer  walls  were  much  dilapidated ;  in  many 
places  cracked  and  crumbled.  The  buildings,  roofs,  &c.,  old 
and  decayed.  We  had  one  rain,  in  the  spring  of  1850,  which 
nearly  drowned  Captain  Grant  out.  I  considered  this  fort 
nearly  or  quite  untenable,  from  the  leaky  and  bad  condition 
of  the  roofs,  walls,  &c. 

Int.  6. — How  much  would  you  estimate  that  Fort  Ilall  had 
deteriorated  from  its  value  when  new? 

Ans. — I  should  estimate  that,  as  a  fort  or  building,  it  was 
not  worth  more  than  one-fourth  of  what  it  was  when  new. 

Int.  7. — AVhether  or  not  you  have  ever  constructed  any 
buildings  of  adobe  ? 

Ans. — I  have,  both  in  Texas  and  New  Mexico. 

Int.  8. — What  would  you  estimate  would  have  been  tne  cost 


1 


380 


ri^-,h 


I"' 


in  1850  of  crccHng  such  a  post  as  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany's Fort  Hall  ? 

Ans. — My  answer  will  have  to  he  approximate.  I  should 
say  from  ^10,000  to  $15,000.  In  giving  this  estimate  I  rate 
lahor  at  $50  a  month. 

Int.  9. — What  is  the  character  of  the  land  round  Fort  Hall? 

Ans. — With  the  exception  of  the  river  bottom  and  a  little 
stream  called  Portncuf,  the  land  is  utterly  sterile  and  worth- 
less, producing  nothing  but  wild  sage  or  artemesia. 

Int.  10. — Was  there  any  cultivated  land  around  the  fort? 

Ans. — There  was  a  little  patch  of  an  acre  and  a  half  spaded 
up.     They  tried  to  raise  vegetables,  but  did  not  succeed. 

Int.  11. — What  do  you  know  of  the  trade  of  this  post? 

Ans. — At  that  time  there  was  little  or  no  trade  that  I  was 
aware  of.  The  fur  trade  seemed  to  have  been  almost  entirely 
abandoned,  from  the  scarcity  of  furs  and  their  decreased  value. 
The  Indians  about  there  were  the  Digger  and  Snake  Indians, 
the  poorest  and  meanest  of  all  the  Indians.  There  were  not 
exceeding  ten  persons  at  the  fort — Captain  Grant  and  family, 
some  Canadians,  and  three  or  four  old  Indians. 

Int.  12. — Whether  or  not  there  wci-e  any  cattle  belonging 
to  the  post  and  ranging  over  the  country? 

Ans. — I  think  Captain  Grant  had  a  small  herd — from  twenty 
to  thirty  cattle,  and  the  same  number  of  ponies  and  mules,  not 
exceeding  seventy-five  in  all.  This  herd  was  grazed  along 
this  narrow  belt  I  spoke  of,  on  Portneuf  Valley  and  Snake 
river.  For  miles  there  is  not  a  spear  of  grass  ;  then  you  come 
to  spots  that  arc  lower  where  grass  grows. 

Int.  13. — Whether  or  not  there  were  any  cattle  kept  at  the 
post? 

Ans. — The  cattle  I  have  referred  to,  when  driven  up,  were 
herded  in  the  fort. 

Int.  14. — How  does  the  cost  of  erecting  adobe  buildings 
compare  with  the  cost  of  erecting  wooden  buildings  ^ 

Ans. — The  adobe,  both  in  Texas  and  New  Mexico,  is  con- 
sidered the  cheapest,  much.  The  same  thing  holds  good  in 
old  Mexico,  in  the  dry  portions  of  the  country. 

Int.  15. — Which  would  be  the  most  expensive,  if  sufficient 


381 

wood  could  be  procured  within  half  a  mile,  and  no  expense 
but  for  cutting  and  hauling? 

Ans. — The  adobe  would  still  be  the  cheapest. 

Int.  IG. — Will  you  please  describe  how  adobe  buildings  are 
made? 

Ans. — Adobes  are  made  with  clay,  soil,  or  earth.  The 
earth  is  mixed  with  water;  the  earth  is  worked  up,  something 
like  hastily-mixed  mortar,  to  something  like  consistency,  then 
moulded  similar  to  brick,  in  size  eighteen  inches  long,  nine 
inches  wide,  six  inches  thick,  and  then  dried  in  the  sun  until 
hard,  which  takes  from  three  to  six  days,  depending  on  the 
weather.  They  are  laid  up  in  the  walls,  chimneys,  partitions, 
ice,  like  brick.  The  pointing  or  mortar  used  is  the  same  earth, 
mixed  with  the  hoes,  from  which  the  adobe  is  made.  The  roofs 
of  the  buildings  at  Fort  Hall  were  first  a  layer  of  poles,  and 
on  them  were  piled  the  natural  earth,  covered  with  natural 
earth  to  the  thickness  of  one  to  two  feet.  I  iiave  had  a  good 
deal  of  experience  in  the  construction  of  adobes. 

Cross-Examination. 


riven  up,  were 


lexico,  is  con- 


ire,  if  sufficient 


Int.  1. — On  what  stream  was  Cantonment  Loring  ? 

Ans. — It  was  on  a  small  bayou  of  Snake  river  ? 

Int.  2. — What  number  of  men,  horses,  pack  animals,  and 
draught  animals  wintered  at  Cantonment  Loring? 

Ans. — Wo  arrived  at  Cantonment  Loring,  say  with  about 
250  men,  about  1,200  horses,  mules,  and  cattle.  About  two- 
thirds  of  that  number  died  from  starvation.  The  few  we 
saved  was  by  forage  brought  out  in  the  train ;  and  we  drove 
them  into  little  valleys,  and  cut  some  grass  in  August. 

Int.  3. — Was  there  much  snow  that  winter  ? 

Ans. — It  was  looiccd  upon  as  a  severe  winter. 

Int.  4. — Did  not  the  officers  in  command,  when  deciding  to 
remain  at  Cantonment  Loring  during  the  winter,  from  all  the 
information  they  could  derive,  believe  that  they  could  carry 
most  of  their  animals  through  the  winter  on  the  natural  grasses 
of  the  country,  in  addition  to  the  forage  they  had  with  them? 
Ans. — It  was  considered  very  doubtful;  so  much  so  [that]  the 


382 


great  trouble  was  in  determining  what  portion  of  the  commaiKl 
should  remain.     It  was  considered  hazardous  to  remain. 

Int.  5. — Were  not  these  animals  much  reduced  in  flesh  by 
their  journey  across  the  plains,  and  unable  to  stand  the  cold 
of  that  winter? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir.  On  our  arrival,  most  of  these  animals  were 
thin  and  jaded,  but,  from  the  time  of  our  arrival  until  the 
snows  set  in,  most  of  them  had  recuperated. 

Int.  G. — At  what  time  in  the  spring  did  you  break  camp 
and  leave  Cantonment  Loring? 

Ans. — I  think  it  was  about  June  1 ;  but  I  cannot  be  posi- 
tive of  this. 

Int.  7. — Had  the  grass  started  to  any  extent  when  you  left 
Fort  Hall  ? 

Ans. — I  should  think  the  grass  was  about  one  to  tAvo  weeks 
old  when  we  left. 

Int.  8. — After  leaving  the  river  bottom  of  the  Snake  river, 
is  there  not  a  plateau  about  seventy-five  feet? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  9. — Did  you  examine  this  plateau  about  the  fort  with 
any  care? 

Ans. — I  have  passed  over  it,  in  every  direction,  a  great 
many  times. 

Int.  10. — Did  you  not  notice  it  particularly  in  the  winter 
season? 

Ans. — More  particularly  before  winter  set  in,  in  hunting 
for  little  valleys  for  mowing  and  grazing. 

Int.  11. — Didyou  not  see  on  this  plateau  bunch  grass  growing  ? 

Ans. — Did  not  see  any  bunch  grass  growing;  sage  was  the 
only  thing  that  grew  there. 

Int.  12. — Will  you  look  at  this  document,  now  shown  to  you, 
in  evidence  in  this  cause,  on  page  123,  published  evidence  for 
the  Claimants,  under  head  of  "Post  No.  7,  Fort  Hall,"  and 
say  how  far  it  is  correct,  to  the  best  of  your  recollection  ? 

Ans. — In  addition  to  what  I  have  stated,  I  recollect  that 
there  were  some  buildings  running  along  the  wall,  cut  up  into 
apartments  ten  to  twelve  feet  square.  I  remember  there  Avere 
perhaps  six  or  eight  of  these.     I  also  recollect  the  bastions, 


383 


ind  the  cold 


he  fort  -with 


two  in  all.     I  think  the  size  is  correctly  stated  in  the  printed 
evidence.     You  could  put  two  men  on  each  side. 

Int.  13. — Can  you  estimate  the  cost  of  this  fort,  built  by  a 
party  of  men  strong  enough  to  protect  themselves  against  un- 
friendly Indians,  brought  from  the  frontiers  of  the  United 
States,  including  in  the  estimate  the  cost  of  subsistence  and 
wages  for  the  trip  out  and  back,  taking  into  consideration  the 
length  of  time  necessary  for  the  journey  out  and  return,  and 
the  erection  of  buildings? 

Ans. — It  './ould  take  a  great  deal  of  time.  It  would  only 
be  arrived  at  after  a  long  and  very  careful  calculation.  You 
would  have  to  estimate  various  items — as  wages,  subsistence, 
transportation,  material,  time,  &c.,  &c. 

Int.  14. — Would  it  not  largely  exceed  the  estimate  you  have 
put,  of  wages  at  $50  a  month? 

Ans. — I  do  not  think  it  would,  taking  -into  consideration 
that  the  necessary  outfit  could  be  sold  on  the  return. 

Int.  15. — Is  not  the  grass  in  September  and  October  very 
much  parched  and  dried  up,  in  the  vicinity  of  Fort  Hall, 
owing  to  the  want  of  rain  in  the  summer  months? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  in  1849  it  remained  generally  green  until 
killed  by  the  frost. 

Int.  16. — Is  not  your  recollection  of  Fort  Hall  and  its  sur* 
roundings  somewhat  uncertain  and  indistinct,  owing  to  the 
lapse  of  years,  and  the  exciting  scenes  of  the  late  war,  in 
which  you  have  so  largely  participated? 

Ans. — Of  course  many  of  the  details  have  escaped  my 
memory,  it  being  now  nearly  eighteen  years  since  I  was  there. 

Int.  17. — Are  not  the  adobe  buildings  you  speak  of,  in  New 
Mexico  and  other  sections  of  the  country  which  you  have 
spoken  of,  built  in  a  region  of  country  which  unite?  two  con- 
ditions, absence  of  timber  and  an  almost  entire  freedom  from 
rain  ? 

^«5.*-Yes,  sir. 

Gordon  Granger, 
Bvt.  Major  Qeneraly  U.  S.  A. 
25  H 


384 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay   Company 
against  the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  Sylvester  Mowry,  witness  examined  on  behalf 
of  the  United  States,  this  30th  day  of  May,  1867,  at 
Washington  city,  D.  C. 

Testimony  of  Sylvester  Mowry. 

Int.  1. — State  your  name,  residence,  and  occupation. 

Ans. — Sylvester  Mowry,  Arizona;  engaged  in  mining. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  ever  visited  Fort  Colvile,  a  post  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company?  if  so,  describe  it. 

Ans. — Yes,  sir.  I  was  there  in  the  fall  of  1853,  in  Captain 
McClellan's  expedition  for  the  survey  of  the  Pacific  railroad. 
There  wc  e  a  number  of  Wooden  buildings,  with  a  stockade, 
which  was  partially  demolished.  One  building  was  occupied 
by  the  Chief  Trader,  Mr.  McDonald,  I  think.  They  were 
plain  wooden,  serviceable  buildings,  in  tolerable  repair. 
Some  were  occupied,  and  some  were  not.  The  place  had  the 
appearance  of  having  been  formerly  occupied  by  a  much 
larger  force.  I  dined  twice  with  Mr.  McDonald,  once  pri- 
vately, and  the  other  time  a  kind  of  State  dinner,  given  to 
Captain  McClellan  and  the  officers.  The  stores  were  sent 
up  from  Fort  Vancouver;  there  was  nothing  there  to  enable 
them  to  give  a  decent  dinner  to  a  stranger.  The  buildings 
were  decaying;  there  seemed  to  be  no  desire  to  keep  them  up. 
I  was  informed  by  the  officers  of  the  Company  that  they 
expected  soon  to  be  bought  out  by  the  United  States. 

Int.  3. — How  much  do  you  think  that  this  fort  has  depre- 
ciated in  wilue  as  a  fort  or  building  since  it  had  been  built  ? 

Ans. — Forty  per  cent. 

Int.  4. — Whether  or  not  you  have  had  experience  in  erect- 
ing buildings;  if  so,  where?  • 

Ans. — At  my  own  cost,  in  Arizona.  I  have  put  up  perhaps 
forty  or  fifty  buildings,  both  adobe  and  wood. 

Int.  5. — How  long  do  you  think  it  would  have  taken  twenty- 
five  men  to  have  built  Fort  Colvile,  stockade  and  all,  if  the 


Wi^ 


385 


ice  in  erect- 


timber  could  have  been  obtained  on  the  ground,  or  within  a 
quarter  of  a  mile? 

Ans. — From  four  to  six  months. 

Int.  6. — Have  you  ever  visited  Fort  Okanagan?  if  so, 
describe  it. 

Ans. — I  have.  I  was  there  at  the  same  time  with  Captain 
McClellan.  Okanagan  was  almost  deserted.  There  was  a 
French  half-breed  in  charge  of  the  place.  He  had  two 
women  and  four  or  five  Indians  with  him.  The  place  was  all 
run  down.  The  place  was  gone  to  ruin;  no  attempt  to  keep 
it  up.  Very  few  furs  there.  We  could  have  bought  them  all 
for  a  small  sum. 

Int.  7. — How  much  do  you  think  the  buildings  at  Fort 
Okanagan  had  depreciated  in  quality? 

Ans. — Seventy-five  per  cent.  The  buildings  were  low, 
small  hovels,  only  partially  occupied.  The  man  in  charge 
represented  himself  as  neglected  by  the  Company,  and  begged 
for  the  smallest  things.  I  think  ten  men  could  have  built  the 
post  in  three  months. 

Int.  8. — Have  you  ever  visited  Walla- Walla,  a  post  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — Yes.  It  was  a  quadrangular  fort,  made  of  adobe. 
It  seemed  to  be  in  tolerable  repair.  I  think  it  was  not  used 
much  as  a  trading  post;  more  as  a  station,  to  supply  the  posts 
above. 

Int.  9. — What  do  you  know  of  the  comparative  cost  of 
adobe  and  wooden  buildings? 

Ans. — Adobes  are  much  the  cheapest  under  equal  circum- 
stances. Adobes  are  sun-burnt  mud-brick.  A  simple  frame, 
like  a  ladder,  made  of  wood,  generally  having  six  apertures 
for  mou  .  ,  generally  the  apertures  eighteen  inches  long, 
nine  inches  wide,  and  six  inches  deep.  This  frame  has  han- 
dles at  each  end,  so  that  it  can  be  easily  carried  by  two  men. 
The  moulds  are  laid  flat  on  the  ground,  and  the  apertures  are 
filled  with  mud.  A  little  straw  or  refuse  from  the  stable  is 
mixed  with  the  mud,  to  give  it  adhesion.  The  frame  is  lifted 
and  placed  alongside  of  the  adobes  just  moulded,  and  the 
flame  process  repeated.    After  a  short  drying  in  the  sun,  they 


880 


are  turned  so  as  to  rest  on  the  longest  edge,  and  then  turned 
completely  over  to  finish  drying.  For  special  purposes,  tlicy 
are  sometimes  made  smaller,  seldom  less  than  twelve  inches. 
When  made  by  contract  in  Arizona,  $8  a  thousand  would  be 
considered  a  good  price. 

Int.  10. — State  whether  or  no  you  have  any  particular 
knowledge  of  the  cost  of  adobe  and  wooden  buildings. 

Ans. — At  my  own  place  in  Arizona,  where  timber  was 
abundant,  it  was  found  much  cheaper  to  put  up  adobes.  Tiie 
wooden  buildings  cost  one-half  as  much  more.  In  building 
the  buildings  at  the  village  for  my  workmen  at  the  mines,  the 
first  buildings  were  of  wood,  logs,  and  slabs,  and  after  two  or 
three  were  built  the  building  of  them  was  abandoned,  it  being 
found  [that]  adobes  were  much  cheaper.  This  arises  from  the 
fact  that  the  use  of  skilled  labor,  and  the  tools  necessary  to 
use  in  building  wooden  houses,  demand  a  high  price  in  all 
frontier  countries.  Adode  houses  can  be  built  with  the  rudest 
kind  of  labor,  and  made  comfortable  and  habitable  at  very 
small  cost. 

(All  testimony  with  reference  to  Arizona  and  experience 
there  objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 


Cross-examination  of  Sylvester  Mowry — May  21,  1867. 


mMt 


Int.  1. — How  many  days  were  you  at  Colvile  in  1853? 

Ans. — Four  or  five. 

Int.  2. — Were  you  all  the  time  at  the  fort,  or  camped 
near  it? 

Ans. — We  first  camped  across  the  river,  then  moved  across. 

Int.  3. — How  much  time  were  you  actually  at  Fort  Colvile? 

Ans. — I  suppose  I  was  there  twenty-four  hours. 

Int.  4. — Do  you  think  that  you  gave  much  time  to  the 
examination  of  these  buildings,  their  method  of  construction, 
the  condition  of  the  roof,  soundness  of  the  sills,  or  in  any 
way  so  inspected  them  as  to  enable  you  to  have  an  accurate 
and  correct  idea  of  the  time  it  would  take  to  build  them  with 
a  certain  number  of  men,  or  of  their  soundness  or  fitness  for 
service? 


887 

Ans. — I  made  no  special  examination.  My  observation 
was  that  dictated  by  natural  curiosity,  and  I  saw  enough,  in 
the  examination  I  made,  to  form  an  intelligent  judgment  as 
to  the  general  condition  of  the  post,  its  state  of  repair,  and 
how  much  time  it  would  take  to  build  it  with  a  certain  number 
of  men. 

Int.  5. — Is  the  opinion  which  you  gave  in  answer  to  inter- 
rogatory 3 — as. to  how  long  it  would  take  twenty-five  men  to 
build  Fort  Colvile  and  the  stockade,  with  the  timber  to  be 
obtained  within  a  quarter  of  a  mile  of  the  place — an  opinion 
formed  by  you  at  the  time?  or  is  it  an  opinion  formed  at  the 
time  the  question  was  put,  and  based  upon  your  present  recol- 
lection of  the  fort  and  its  surroundings? 

Ans. — Formed  from  my  present  recollections,  and  thinking 
of  the  matter  since  I  was  notified  I  would  be  called  as  a 
witness. 

Int.  6. — Do  you  recollect  at  Colvile  a  range  of  stores  sixty 
feet  by  twenty-five? 

Ans. — I  remember  a  range  of  buildings,  store?;  I  did  not 
measure  them. 

Int.  7. — Do  you  recollect  another  range  of  stores  of  fifty 
feet  by  twenty-one? 

Ans. — I  have  no  special  recollection  of  this  second  range 
of  stores.  My  recollection  of  the  place  is  suflScient  for  me  to 
recognize  it  if  there  was  a  drawing  of  it. 

Int.  8, — Do  you  recollect  another  store,  separate  and  dis- 
tinct from  two  ranges  just  spoken  of? 

Ans. — I  recollect  a  separate  building,  but  my  impression  is 
that  it  was  not  used  as  a  store. 

Int.  9. — Do  you  recollect  these  two  dwelling-houses,  and  a 
range  of  officers'  houses,  making  in  all  three  houses  inhabited 
by  the  officers  and  employes  of  the  fort  ? 

Ans. — I  recollect  distinctly  Mr.  McDonald's  dwelling-house 
and  some  other  building  which  was  pointed  out  for  the  officers 
and  employes,  but  I  understood  they  were  not  all  inhabited. 

Int.  10. — Can  you  give  the  length  and  width  of  the  range 
of  stores  you  recollect  at  the  fort? 


388 

Am. — I  cannot  give  any  accurate  idea. 

Int.  11. — Can  you  give  the  length  and  width  of  the  house 
you  dined  in  with  Mr.  McDonald? 

Ans. — I  should  think  it  was  in  the  neighborhood  of  about 
forty  feet  square. 

Int.  12. — Was  it  a  new  house  ? 

Ans. — No. 

Int.  13. — Can  you  give  the  dimensions  of  any  of  the  other 
buildings  they  told  you  were  the  dwelling-houses  ? 

Ans. — Not  accurately. 

Int.  14. — How  long  were  you  at  Fort  Okanagan? 

Ans. — We  camped  there  one  night,  I  think.  I  was  in  the 
fort  twice,  a  few  minutes  each  time. 

Int.  15. — Was  it  not  a  stockade  fort? 

Ans. — There  was  an  enclosure;  the  buildings  were  inside. 

Int.  16. — Can  you  say  that  there  was  not,  inside  the  stockade 
at  Okanagan,  two  dwelling-houses — one  thirty-eight  feet  by 
twenty-two,  one  twenty-two  by  twenty-two? 

Ans. — There  were  some  tumble-down  affairs;  you  might 
call  them  houses.  I  don't  remember  the  dimensions.  The 
one  that  I  went  into  was  very  rudely  built,  with  low  ceiling, 
in  bad  repair? 

Int.  17. — Do  you  know  whether  this  was  a  store-house,  or  a 
dwelling-house  belonging  to  the  fort? 

Ans. — My  impression  is  that  it  was  used  as  both.  I  went 
there  to  interpret  for  some  of  the  oflScers  who  wanted  to  buy 
some  furs,  and  I  saw  in  the  building  two  squaws,  pointed  out 
as  the  wives  of  the  man  in  charge. 

Int.  18. — Did  you  see  another  building  within  the  stockade 
of  the  same  size  as  that  into  which  you  entered? 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect  it. 

Int.  19. — Did  you  see  a  third  building  in  the  inside,  about 
one-half  as  large  as  that  you  entered?  , 

Ans. — I  have  no  special  recollection  of  it. 

Int.  20. — Do  you  think  a  building  thirty-eight  feet  by  twenty- 
two  is  a  small  building?    • 

Ans, — It  depends  on  what  you  are  going  to  use  it  for;  it 


389 


louse,  or  a 


would  bo  a  small  building  for  a  church,  and  a  large  one  for  a 
stable.  ♦  ' 

Int.  21. — What  is  your  recollection  of  the  size  of  that 
building  in  which  you  were  at  Fort  Okanagan,  its  length  and 
width? 

Ans. — I  should  think  probably  it  might  have  been  twenty- 
five  or  thirty  feet  long  by  fifteen  or  twenty  wide. 

Int.  22. — At  what  time  in  the  year  were  you  at  Fort  Okan- 
agan ? 

Am. — It  was  in  the  fall;  snow  had  fallen. 

Int.  23. — What  time  of  the  year  were  you  at  Colvile? 

Ans. — We  were  there  a  few  days  before  arriving  at  Fort 
Okanagan. 

Int.  24. — Were  you  at  Colvile  more  than  once  in  the  year 
1853? 

Arts. — No,  sir. 

Int.  25. — How  long  were  you  at  Walla- Walla? 

An9. — We  camped  above  and  below  the  fort.  In  passing 
it  I  rode  in,  and  took  a  casual  look. 

Int.  26. — Were  not  your  laborers  in  Arizona  chiefly  Mexi- 
cans and  Indians,  or  of  the  mixed  race  of  Mexican  and 
Indian  ? 

Ans. — Altogether,  excepting  those  engaged  in  skilled  labor. 

Int.  27. — Were  they  not  unskillful,  even  in  the  use  of 
the  axe? 

Ans. — No;  they  use  the  axe  very  well. 

Int.  28. — Do  they  not  usually  live  in  adobe  buildings,  and 
are  they  not  well  skilled  in  the  erection  of  this  sort  of 
dwelling? 

Ans. — Yes;  nearly  all  Indians  or  mixed  race  of  Indians 
and  Mexicans  know  how  to  make  adobes,  but  the  laying  of 
them  is  a  trade. 

Sylvester  Mowry. 

May  31,  1867. 


890 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
agaimt  the  United  States. 

« 

Deposition  of  William  J.  Terry,  a  witness  examined  on 
behalf  of  the  United  States,  this  20th  of  May,  18G7,  at 
Washington  city,  D.  C. 

Testimony  of  William  J.  Terry. 

Int.  1. — State  your  name,  residence,  and  occupation? 
Ana. — My  name  is  William  J.  Terry;  residence,  Walla- 
Walla,  Washington  Territory;  general  business. 

Tnt.  2. — What  do  you  know  of  Fort  Walla- Walla,  a  post  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — My  acquaintance  with  it  began  in  the  spring  of  1857. 
It  was  then  a  square  wall,  running  round,  with  an  entrance 
fronting  on  the  river,  with  sheds  or  forms  of  houses  on  the 
nside.  Those  sheds  had  no  roofs,  only  the  walls  were  stand- 
ng.  The  walls  of  the  houses  and  the  outside  wall  were  torn 
down  in  several  places.  The  whole  place  was  a  dilapidated- 
looking  concern. 

Int.  3. — What  changes  have  taken  place  in  this  post  since? 

Ana. — When  I  left  it,  in  December  last,  only  one  wall  that 
I  could  see  was  standing. 

Int.  4. — What  was  its  value  when  you  first  knew  it? 

Ana. — It  was  not  worth  ten  dollars. 

Int.  5. — What  is  its  value  now  ? 

Ana. — Of  no  value,  except  as  land. 

Int.  6. — What  is  the  character  of  the  land  round  that  post? 

Ans. — It  is  sandy  alkali,  and  bears  nothing  but  sage-brush. 
It  is  altogether  unfit  for  cultivation.  When  I  first  knew  it,  it 
could  not  have  been  sold  at  any  price. 

Int.  7. — What  would  you  estimate  to  have  been  the  cost  of 
:he  original  Fort  Walla- Walla? 

Ana. — Mr.  Pambrun,  who  was  in  charge  at  Fort  Walla 
Walla  at  one  time,  is  my  father-in-law,  and  from  him  I  have 
learned  much  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  Company  and 


891 

its  peculiar  managcniont.  I  should  think  it  did  not  ovif,'inally 
cost  them  more  than  ^2,500.  I  have  put  up  adoho  huiJdiiigs 
in  Texas.  I  think  thnt  I  could  put  up  such  a  building  as  that 
fort  was  when  new  for  $10,000,  even  considering  labor  as 
worth  050  per  month.     This  estimate  refers  to  the  present  time. 

Examination-in-Chief  Resumed  this  June  7, 18G7. 

Int.  8. — Please  to  add  any  thing  which  you  desire,  in  addi 
tion  to  the  above,  on  the  subject  of  Walla- Walla. 

Am. — I  do  not  wish  to  add  any  thing,  except  this:  I  would 
not  take  0200  a  month  salary  to  live  at  Walla- Walla,  fs  I  first 
saw  it,  which  was  in  the  spring  of  1857.  I  clerked  for  a  gen- 
tleman in  the  western  part  of  Texas,  when  I  was  seventeen 
years  old,  and  he  put  up  adobes,  with  my  assistance,  and  this 
experience  enables  me  to  form  an  opinion  as  to  the  cost  of 
adobes. 

Int.  9. — Have  you  at  any  time  visited  Fort  Umpqua;  and, 
if  so,  when  ?  " 

Am. — Late  in  the  fall  of  1851. 

Int.  10. — Please  to  describe  what  you  saw  of  the  structures 
of  Fort  Umpqua. 

Ans. — There  was  a  lot  of  low,  flat,  dirt-covered  houses. 
There  was  what  I  call  a  half-breed  living  there. 

Int.  11. — Did  you  observe  any  signs  of  any  kind  of  business 
transacted  there  at  that  time  ? 

Ans. — None  that  I  could  see. 


Cross-Examination. 


Int.  1.— When  you  went  to  old  Fort  Walla- Walla,  in  1857, 
what  business  took  you  there,  and  how  long  did  you  remain 
there? 

Ans. — I  went  to  the  new  fort  to  see  Colonel  Steptoe,  and  on 
my  return  stopped  at  the  old  fort  a  couple  of  days. 

Int.  2. — Who  was  at  the  old  fort  when  you  went  there? 

Ans. — I  think  C.  P.  Higgins. 


392 


Int.  3. — Was  not  Mr.  Higgins  at  that  time  in  possession  of 
the  fort  ? 

Ann. — Yes,  I  think  ho  was. 

Int.  4. — Was  not  Iliggins  at  that  time  acting  as  receiving 
freight-agent  for  the  Quartermaster's  Department? 

Am. — If  ho  was  there  at  the  time,  that  w^as  his  business. 
I  was  there  several  times,  and  found  Mr.  Higgins  in  the  posi- 
tion I  have  stated,  but  I  am  not  entirely  certain  whether  I 
found  him  there  the  first  time. 

Int.  5. — Was  there  not  at  the  same  time  a  guard  of  soldiers 
in  possession  of  the  landing  there? 

Ans. — I  am  not  certain  whether  they  were  in  possession  of 
the  landing,  but  they  were  camped  there  to  protect  the  goods 
from  hostile  Indians. 

Int.  6. — In  the  summer  of  1857,  when  your  visit  to  old  Fort 
Walla-Walla  took  place,  was  there  not  an  Indian  war  going 
on  in  that  section  of  the  country  ? 

Ans. — I  think  not.  There  was  no  war  at  Walla- Walla  ut 
there  was  an  Indian  war  going  on  in  the  country  nort  of 
there — the  Spokane  country. 

Int.  7. — Was  your  first  visit  there  before  or  after  Steptoe's 
defeat  ? 

Ans. — I  think  it  was  before. 

Int.  8. — Where  was  your  horse  pastured  while  you  were 
there  ? 

Ans. — I  turned  him  out  with  some  Indian  horses,  I  think. 

Int.  9. — Is  not  your  opinion  of  the  original  cost  to  the  Com- 
pany of  old  Fort  Walla- Walla  derived  from  your  conversations 
with  your  father-in-law,  Mr.  Pambrun  ? 

Ans.  -From  his  conversations  and  my  own  knowledge  of 
the  character  and  style  of  business  of  the  Company. 

Int.  10. — What  dealings  have  you  ever  had  with  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company? 

Ans. — I  bought  some  wearing  apparel  from  them  at  Fort 
Vancouver. 

Int.  11. — Did  you  pay  the  hands  who  were  engaged  in  build- 
ing adobes  in  Texas  ? 

Ans. — I  was  clerk  in  the  store,  and  paid  them  for  their 


893 

work.  They  were  peons.  I  gave  them  2;")  cents  a  Jay  and  so 
much  a  week  in  corn. 

Int.  12. — Did  you  superintend  the  construction  of  these 
adobe  buildings  ? 

An». — No,  I  did  not.  I  know  what  it  cost  when  it  was  fin- 
ished. 

Int.  13. — Of  what  size  was  the  fort  at  old  Walla-Walla " 

Ans. — I  don't  know. 

Int.  14. — How  long  wore  you  at  Fort  Umpqua  ? 

Ans. — To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  I  spent  one  evening 
there ;  camped  outside. 

Int.  15. — Between  what  places  were  you  travelling  at  that 
time,  and  in  what  manner? 

An%. — Between  Yreka,  in  California,  and  Scottsburg,  in 
Oregon.     I  was  travelling  on  horseback. 


W.  J.  Terry. 


.hivp  7   18(17. 


lowledge  of 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION 


OS  THE 


HUDSON'S   BAY   AND   PUGET'S   SOUND  AGRICUL- 
TURAL  COMPANIES'    CLAIMS. 


8   4 


im 


]] 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Iliuhon's  Bay  Company 
against  the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  .  jiin  F.  Nodlk,  witness  introduced  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States,  this  27th  day  of  June,  1867,  taken 
in  the  office  of  the  Joint  Commission,  at  Washington  city, 
D.  C. 

Testimony  of  John  F.  Noble. 

Int.  1. — Please  to  state  your  name  and  official  station. 

yb?5. — John  F.  Noble;  first  lieutenant  in  the  Oregon  Cav- 
alry until  the  31st  day  of  December,  186G,  but  at  present 
holding  no  office. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  at  any  time  resided  in  the  limits  of  the 
former  Territory  of  Oregon ;  and,  if  so,  from  what  year  to 
what  year,  and  at  what  places  ? 

Ans.—I  have;  from  1849  to  1851,  then  from  1854  to  1867; 
at  Vancouver,  Dalles,  Wayletpu,  or  the  Whitman  Mission, 
and  at  Fort  Walla-Walla,  Camp  Watson,  Grant  county. 

Int.  3. — At  what  time  did  you  reside  at  Fort  Vancoaver? 

Ans.— From  the  fall  of  1849  to  1851. 

Int.  4. — Were  you  personally  acquainted  with  any  of  the 
principal  officers  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  there  ;  and, 
if  so,  under  what  particular  circumstances? 

Ans. — I  was ;  from  personal  friendship,  and  from  official 
duty  as  Quartermaster's  Clerk  to  Captain,  now  General, 
Ingalls,  of  the  United  States  Army.  I  had  frequently  inter- 
course with  those  gentlemen. 


305 


CO  liver : 


Int.  0. — Whetlior  you  have,  at  any  part  of  that  time,  been 
acquainted  with  Mr.  Ogdcn  ? 

Ans. — I  was.  * 

Int.  6. — Have  you  heard  him  make  any  statements,  and,  if 
any,  what,  concerning  the  fur  trade  of  the  Company? 

Ans:. — Mr.  Ogdcn  told  me  that  the  depreciation  of  the  price 
of  heaver  had  ruined  their  trade  of  the  country. 

(The  above  question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Int.  7. — State  anything  further  which  occurs  to  you,  in  an- 
swer to  the  general  matter  of  tlie  question. 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  rehitivc  to  the  subject  in  question 
beyond  what  I  have  already  stated. 

Int.  8. — What  office  in  the  Hudson's  Bay  Cj'/ipany  did  Mr. 
Ogden  then  hold  ? 

Ans. — Chief  factor. 

Int.  9. — Were  you  acquainted  with  ^Ir.  Graham,  one  of  the 
Company's  officers  at  Fort  Vancouver? 

Ans. — I  was. 

Int.  10.— What  office  did  he  hold  ? 

Ans. — When  I  first  know  him  ho  was  a  clerk  of  the  Com- 
pany ;  afterwards  he  was  promoted  to  a  chief  trader,  as  I  was 
informed.     I  knew  him  in  both  capacities. 

int.  11. — Have  you  heard  him  speak  of  locating  a  claim  at 
Fort  Vancover;  and,  if  so,  what  did  he  say  on  the  subject? 

Ans. — I  have.  He  stated  that  he  had  taken  a  claim  em- 
bracing what  was  then  known  as  Fort  Vancouver.  He  said 
that,  having  taken  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  United  States, 
he  took  the  claim,  believing  it  to  be  valuable,  as  this  property 
would  soon  revert  to  the  United  States. 

(Objected  to  as  irrelevant  and  as  incompetent.) 

Int.  12. — Have  you  resided  at  Walla-Walla  any  time;  and, 
if  so,  when  ? 

Ans. — I  have.  I  commanded  the  United  States  Fort  Walla- 
Walla  from  the  latter  part  of  1865  to  the  latter  part  of  18<j6. 

Int.  13. — Whilst  in  command  there,  had  you  occasion  to  visit 
or  see  the  old  Hudson's  Bay  post  of  Walla-Walla  ? 

Ans, — Knowi^  as  such,  I  have. 


396 

Int.  14. — Whether  was  the  post  occupied  or  unoccupied  by 
officers  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — It  was  not  occupied. 

Int.  15. — What  was  the  condition  of  the  buildings  of  tlu 
former  post? 

Ans. — In  a  dilapidated  condition. 

Int.  10. — Had  you  had  any  previous  knowledge  of  this  post ; 
and,  if  so,  when  ? 

Ans. — In  1854-5-6  and  8. 

Int.  17. — State  the  conditions  of  the  buildings  of  the  old 
post  during  that  period? 

Ans. — Not  in  good  condition. 

Int.  18. — Were  they  occupied  at  that  period  by  officers  ot 
the  Company  ? 

An%. — They  were  in  1854-5 ;  afterwards  I  do  not  remember. 

Int.  19. — What  persons  did  you  see  there  in  1854  ? 

AnB. — To  the  best  of  my  belief,  Mr.  James  Sinclair.  There 
were  other  persons  there,  but  I  do  not  know  who. 


Cross-Examination . 


k 


m 

m 


Int.  1. — Where  was  Mr.  Ogden  when  he  made  the  statements 
given  by  you  in  your  examination? 

Ans. — He  was  within  the  pickets  of  Fort  Vancouver. 

Int.  2. — Was  he  in  the  house  or  in  the  open  air  ? 

Ans. — He  was  on  the  stoop  of  the  house  he  resided  in. 

Int.  3. — What  year  was  this,  and  what  time  in  the  year  ? 

Ans. — It  was  in  the  year  1850,  and  the  early  part  of  it;  the 
exact  time  I  do  not  remember. 

Int.  4. — Can  you  state  what  time  in  the  day  it  was  when 
this  conversation  took  place  ? 

A71S. — I  cannot,  from  the  time  thai  has  elapsed. 

Int.  5. — Who  was  present,  beside  yourself  and  Mr.  Ogden, 
at  the  time  this  conversation  took  place  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  distinctly,  but  think  that  the  now 
Colonel  W.  R.  Gibson,  of  the  Pay  Department  of  the  United 
States  Army,  was  present. 

Int.  6. — Did  Mr.  Gibson  join  in  the  conversation  ? 


Hi!«-MJ. 


397 


iatements 


Ans. — In  this  particular  conversation,  I  cannot  answer,  as 
we  sat  upon  the  stoop  conversing  for  some  time  on  various 
subjects. 

Int.  7. — Could  Mr.  Gibson,  from  the  position  he  occupietl*, 
have  heard  this  remark  when  it  was  made? 

Ans. — If  he  was  the  person,  he  must  certainly  have  heard 
the  conversation. 

Int.  8. — Can  you  not  specify  with  greater  accuracy  the  time, 
and  state  whether  it  was  before  or  after  the  usual  dinner-time 
at  that  post  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot;  but,  to  the  best  of  my  belief,  think  it  was 
after  dinner. 

Int.  9. — Are  you  certain  that  Mr.  Ogden  made  use  of  this 
language,  "Had  ruined  their  trade  of  the  country?" 

Ans. — To  the  best  of  my  belief,  (though  I  do  not  testify  to 
the  language  being  verbatim,)  it  was  the  purport  of  his  lan- 
guage to  me. 

Int.  10. — Was  Mr.  Ogden  in  the  habit  of  talking  to  you 
freely  about  the  affairs  of  the  Company  ? 

Ans. — Not  as  a  general  thing,  except  in  casual  common  con- 
versation. 

Int.  11. — Was  this  a  casual  or  general  remark  addressed  as 
well  to  the  gentlemen  present  as  to  yourself? 

Ans. — I  presume  it  was. 

Int.  12. — What  was  the  occupation  of  Mr.  Gibson  at  that 
time  ? 

Ans, — He  was  a  clerk  in  the  Quartermaster's  Department. 

Int.  13. — About  what  was  the  age  of  Mr.  Gibson  at  that 
time,  and  yours? 

A.ns. — I  can't  say  as  to  Mr.  Gibson's  age  then.  I  was  then 
about  twenty-two. 

Int.  14. — Where  was  Mr.  Graham  when  he  made  the  state- 
ment to  you,  which  you  have  detailed? 

Ans. — Not  once  but  many  times,  and,  to  the  best  of  my  be- 
lief, in  various  places. 

Int.  15. — Did  he  tell  you  he  had  taken  the  oath  of  allegiance 
to  the  United  States? 

Ans. — No,  he  did  not.     I  wish  to  correct  my  former  stacc- 


«l 


mm 


1*£ 


M 


398 

ment  by  saying  that  he  had  declared  his  intention  to  become 
an  American  citizen. 

•  Cross-Examination  liesumcd^  June  28,  1867. 

Int.  1(). — What  time  in  1851  did  you  leave  Vancouver? 

Ans. — Some  time  during  the  month  of  February. 

Int.  17. — Did  Mr.   Graham   make  this  statement  to  you 
shortly  after  your  arrival  in  1849? 

Ans. — The  statements  were  made  to  me  in  1850. 

Int.  18. — Please  state  what  time  in  the  year  1850? 

Ans. — From  the  length  of  time  I  am  unable  to  state  tlio 
time  of  the  year. 

Int.  19.— Was  it  early  in  the  year  1850? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  £o  say,  from  the  great  length  of  time 
that  has  elapsed. 

Int.  20. — Can't  you  tell,  wMth  some  degree  of  certainty,  at 
what  time  of  the  year  1850  he  first  made  those  statements  to  you? 

Ans. — I  will  say  it  was  in  the  latter  part  of  1850. 

Int.  21. — Are  you  able  to  say,  with  any  certainty,  that  thia 
statement  was  not  made  to  you  early  or  in  the  middle  of  1850? 

Ans. — I  cannot. 

Int.  22. — Then  all  you  have  to  say  is,  that  some  time  in  the 
year  1850  this  statement  was  made  to  you? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  23. — Were  you  intimate  enough  with  the  officers  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  to  know  that  by  the  term  the  country, 
they  meant  all  that  portion  of  the  continent  of  North  America 
over  which  their  posts  extended,  and  in  which  the  affairs  of 
the  Company  were  controlled  by  the  factors  and  traders? 

Ans. — I  was  very  intimate  with  many  of  the  officers,  but 
cannot  answer  the  question,  it  being  so  general  and  extensive. 

Int.  24. — What  did  you  understand  by  the  term  country  in 
Mr.  Ogden's  convv^rsation? 

Ans. — I  understood  the  posts  occupied  by  the  Company 
within  the  territory  of  the  United  States. 

Int.  25. — Did  you  know  the  extent  of  their  possessions,  and 
what  the  oflicers  included  in  the  term  country? 

Ans. — I  did  not. 

Jno.  F.  Noble. 


399 


In  the  matter  of  (he  Claim  of  the  Hudson  »  Bay  Company  against 

the  United  States. 


Deposition  of  George  Gibbs,  examined  May  25,  18G7,  at 
Washington  city,  D.  C. 

Testimony  op  George  Gibbs. 

Int.  1. — Are  vou  the  same  George  Gibbs  who  has  testified 
in  the  matter  of  the  chiim  of  the  Pugct's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company  against  the  United  States? 

Alls. — I  am. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  any  pecuniary  interest,  direct  or  indirect, 
in  the  result  of  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
against  the  United  States? 

Ans. — None,  except  as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 

Int.  3. — What  posts  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  south 
of  the  49tli  parallel  of  latitude  have  you  ever  visited? 

Ans. — On  my  route  to  Oregon  in  the  summer  and  fall  of 
1840,  I  visited,  in  passing,  Fort  Hall  and  Fort  Boise,  on  the 
Snake  river.  After  my  arrival  within  the  settled  part  of 
Oregon,  in  December  of  that  year,  I  went  to  Astoria,  near  the 
mouth  of  the  Columbia  river,  where  I  remained  until  the 
spring  of  1851,  visiting  meanwhile  frequently  Fort  Vancouver, 
and  casually  visiting  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  store  at 
Chinook  beach,  the  place  occupied  by  the  so-called  fishery  at 
Pillar  rock,  and  the  post  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz.  I  was 
also  ashore  and  spent  a  night  on  Sauvie's  Island.  Cape  Dis- 
appointment I  once  visited,  but  later.  In  the  spring  of  1851 
I  visited  Champoeg.  From  January  1st  to  July  1st,  1853,  I 
was  at  Astoria,  as  collector  of  the  port.  In  July,  1853,  I  left 
Fort  Vancouver  with  an  expedition  under  Captain,  since 
Major  General,  McClclIan,  for  the  exploration  of  the  Cascade 
mountains  and  the  country  to  the  east  of  them,  during  which 
expedition  I  visited  Fort  Okanagan,  Forts  Colvile,  and  Walla- 
Walla,  spending  four  days  at  Fort  Colvile.  On  reaching  Fort 
Vancouver,  on  my  return  late  in  the  fall,  I  again  went  down 
20  H 


It 


i 


Mil 


Xi^    I.     -IF, 


400 

to  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river,  and  again  visited  Astoria 
and  Chinook;  returning  from  there  I  went  over  to  Pugct's 
Sound,  where  I  remained,  with  occasional  visits  to  Vancouver 
by  way  of  the  Cowlitz,  and  to  Astoria,  until  the  departure  of 
the  Northwestern  Boundary  Survey,  in  the  summer  of  1(S';7. 
In  the  fall  of  1859  and  '60,  I  visited  and  wintered  near  Fort 
Colvile.  In  1860  I  was  in  the  Kootenay  country,  and  passed 
by  what  had  been  the  Kootenay  post.  On  my  return  in  the 
fall  I  passed  by  and  went  into  old  Fort  Walla-Walla,  and 
thence  down  to  Fort  Vancouver.  In  that  winter  I  came  to 
the  States. 

Int.  4. — Whether  or  not  you  made  notes  of  what  you  saw 
and  observed  during  the  expedition  of  McClellan's? 

Ans. — I  did.  I  was  employed  as  geologist,  and  incidentally 
as  interpreter  with  the  Indians.  I  was  in  the  habit  of  keeping 
notes  of  daily  observations,  and,  on  the  completion  of  the 
journey,  prepared  reports,  both  on  the  geology  of  the  interior, 
and  the  Indian  tribes  of  the  Territory,  which  reports  were 
publisiied  in  the  first  volume  of  the  Pacific  Railroad  Surveys. 

Int.  5. — Whether  or  no  your  report  to  Captain  McClellan 
on  the  Indian  tribes  made  any  reference  to  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  and  its  posts  ? 

Ans. — It  did.  I  enumerated  the  various  posts  of  the  Com- 
pany, according  to  my  own  observation,  aided  by  the  best  in- 
formation I  could  obtain  from  the  officers  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  and  others. 

Int.  6. — Will  you  describe  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's 
post  at  Astoria  ? 

Ans. — The  buildings  when  I  first  went  there  were,  I  think, 
four  in  number,  common  log  huts,  and  very  much  out  of  re- 
pair. The  Company  had  abandoned  them  as  a  trading-post. 
though  I  believe  they  still  kept  a  person  in  them  to  hold  pos- 
flession.  In  the  spring  or  summer  of  1850  Major  Hatheway 
came  down  with  a  detachment  of  artillery.  He  remained 
there,  I  think,  a  year,  and  I  think  put  these  buildings  in  some 
repair,  and  built  or  hired  others.  The  point  on  which  the  post 
is  situated  was  included  in  the  donation  claim  of  Shively  and 
Welch,  who  also  had  buildings  there.     The  amount  of  cleared 


401 


land  was  but  small.  A  portion  of  the  hill  side  behind  the  post 
had  once  been  cleared  and  cultivated  by  the  Company  or  their 
predecessors,  but  was  grown  up  in  small  firs.  The  site  at 
Astoria  was  generally  considered  as  the  property  of  the 
United  States  Government,  and  held  by  the  Company  on  its 
behalf,  as  it  had  been  captured  during  the  war  of  1812,  and 
at  its  conclusion  formally  restored  to  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment. The  Company  never  occupied  the  post  after  Major 
HathcAvay  left,  and  the  buildings  gradually  rotted  down,  or 
were  torn  down  by  the  claimants  of  the  land. 

Int.  7. — What  do  you  estimate  to  have  been  the  value  of 
these  buildings  ? 

Ans. — In  my  report  to  Captain  McClellan,  before  alluded  to, 
I  stated  that  "the  old  buildings  at  Astoria  were  of  no  value 
whatever,"  and  now,  from  distinct  recollection  of  the  value  of 
the  buildings  in  1853,  I  corroborate  that  statement. 

Int.  8. — Whether  or  no  there  was  any  Indian  trade  at  As- 
toria when  you  first  went  there  ? 

Ans. — None  at  all  at  the  Company's  post.  There  were  but 
few  Indians  living  on  the  lower  Columbia,  and  those  few  traded 
either  at  the  settler's  stores  or  over  at  Chinook. 

Int.  9. — What  do  you  know  of  any  occupation  of  Cape  Dis- 
appointment by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — Gov.  Ogden,  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  informed 
me  that  they  had  a  tract  of  land  occupied  by  an  old  servant  at 
Cape  Disappointment,  and  I  so  referred  to  it  in  my  report. 
Some  remarks  of  his  left  on  my  mind  the  impression  that  it 
was  his  own  private  claim.  I  remember  the  name  of  one 
Kippling  or  Piske  as  a  Hudson's  Bay  man,  living  at  the  Cape, 
There  could  have  been  but  little,  if  any,  trade  with  the  Indi- 
ans carried  on  there ;  nor  was  it  any  place  for  trade,  as  what 
few  Indians  there  were  frequented  the  Chinook  beach,  which 
was  much  more  convenient,  as  there  was  a  small  store  there, 
kept  by  one  Duchesny,  who  was  supplied  with  goods  by  the 
Company,  and  delivered  his  furs  to  them  in  return.  I  know 
that  he  only  got  a  few  furs,  save  that  he  obtained  ten  sea  otter 
skins  in  one  season.  During  the  whole  of  my  residence  at 
Astoria,  and  frequent  visits  to  the  place  afterwards,  and  on 


mm 


m 


W 


402 

occasion  of  one  visit  to  the  Capo  I  never  had  obsorvatfon  or 
knowledge  of  any  trading-post  belonging  to  tlie  Company  on 
the  Cape,  and  if  there  had  been  any  there  it  must  have  been 
seen  or  known  by  me. 

(Statements  made  by  others  to  tlic  witness  objected  to.) 

Int.  10. — What  tU)  you  know  of  the  use  of  tlie  different  chan- 
nels at  the  entrance  of  the  Columbia  river  by  vessels? 

A71S. — From  the  spring  of  1850,  wlien  the  south  channel 
was  first  properly  sounded  out  b^^  Captain  White,  the  bar-pilot, 
and  subsequently  by  the  United  States  Coast  Survey  schooner 
Ewing,  all  sailing  vessels  and  all  steamers,  except  those  of 
heavy  draft,  passed  through  the  south  channel  as  long  as  1 
knew  anything  of  the  river,  this  channel  being  the  shortest 
and  straightest,  though  not  so  deep  by  half  a  fathom  as  the 
north  channel,  besides  which  it  led  immediately  to  a  good  an- 
chorage or  to  the  direct  route  to  Astoria.  I  was  agent  for  the 
pilots  during  the  year  1850,  as  well  as  deputy  collector  of  the 
port,  and  knew  all  about  the  entrances  and  exits  of  vessels  to 
and  from  the  river,  and  the  opinions  of  the  pilots  and  ship- 
masters. 

Int.  11. — What  do  you  know  of  a  fishing  Station  at  Fillar 
Rock  occupied  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — There  was  a  fishing  station  at  Pillar  Rock,  but  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  never  occupied  it  while  I  was  in  the 
country,  nor  to  my  knowledge,  while  in  the  country,  did  they 
ever  use  or  claim  one  there.  I  Avas  there  at  the  height  of  the 
fishing  season  in  the  spring  of  1850,  when  it  was  occupied  by 
a  citiz:n  of  Astoria  named  Hensill,  who  purchased  the  fish 
from  the  Indians  as  they  seined  them.  He  cured  them  on  the 
spot,  and  was  the  only  white  occupant  of  the  place.  I  re- 
member nothing  of  any  buildings  there,  except,  I  think,  a 
drying  shed,  made  of  split  boards,  such  as  the  Indians  were  in 
the  habit  of  constructing  for  their  own  use. 

Int.  12. — What  do  you  know  of  any  buildings  occupied  or 
used  by  the  Company  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz? 

Ans. — I  was  at  the  place  several  times,  and  remember  the 
buildings,  though  not  very  particularly.  There  was  a  granary 
and  a  house  in  which  a  eouple  of  Canadians  lived,  who  took 


403 


care  of  it.  They  were  at  a  place  sometimes  called  Monticello 
and  sometimes  Cawceman.  Very  little  business  appeared  to 
be  doing  there  at  any  time  that  I  visited  the  place. 

Int.  13. — What  do  you  know  of  any  buildings  used  or  occu- 
pied by  the  Company  at  Walla-Walla? 

Ana. — I  remember  distinctly  the  post  a^Walla-Walla.  In 
tny  official  report  I  described  it  from  notes  taken  on  the  spot, 
as  follows:  "There  are  here  three  or  four  one-story  adobe 
buildings,  with  offices  enclosed  by  a  wall  of  the  same  material, 
some  thirty-five  yards  on  each  side,  having  a  bastion  at  one 
angle.  It  is  almost  utterly  valueless,  except  as  a  station 
where  horses  can  be  kept  for  t)ie  trains.  There  is  indeed  some 
trade  with  the  neighboring  Indians,  chiefly  in  cash,  but  not 
enough  to  warrant  its  maintenance,  except  for  the  above  pur- 
pose. The  fort  is  in  very  indifferent  repair,  and  the  country 
in  the  immediate  neighborhood  a  desert  of  drifting  sand.  Some 
eighteen  or  twenty  miles  up  the  Walla-Walla  river  is  a  so- 
called  farm,  on  which  are  two  small  buildings,  a  dwelling-house 
and  dairy.  There  was  formerly  a  dam  for  irrigation,  but  it  is 
broken  down.  They  have  here  some  twenty  acres  cultivated 
in  different  spots;  the  principal  object  is  grazing.  The  force 
here  consists  of  Mr.  Pambrun,  chief  clerk,  one  interpreter, 
two  traders,  and  six  men,  Canadians  and  Indians.  I  now  dis- 
tinctly recollect  the  correctness  of  this  description,  and  that  it 
was  founded  on  my  personal  observation  at  the  time,  except 
that  the  statement  about  the  trade  of  the  Company  with  the 
neighboring  Indians  was  derived  from  some  officer  of  the 
Company,  I  think  Mr.  Pambrun.  I  omitted  stating  in  the 
description  that  there  was  some  stabling  and  buildings  of  one 
kind  and  another  outside  of  the  walls,  but  they  were  of  a  very 
rude  description,  of  little  or  no  value.  There  is  no  vegetation 
on  the  lands  around  the  fort  capable  of  sustaining  animals.  I 
revisited  the  fort  in  the  fall  of  1860,  after  the  abandonment 
by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  found  it  in  a  still  more 
ruinous  condition,  chiefly  from  natural  decay  and  neglect. 

(Statements  of  Mr.  Pambrun  objected  to.) 


404 


Examination  Resumed. 

Int.  14. — What  do  you  know  of  the  post  of  the  Hudson  » 
Bay  Company  at  Colvile  ? 

Ans. — Fort  Cofvile  is  situated  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Columbia  river,  about  a  mile  above  the  Kettle  Falls,  upon 
the  second  terrace,  and  some  distance  back  from  the  water  at 
its  ordinary  stages,  the  lower  terrace  being  flooded  during  the 
freshets.  The  buildings  were  enclosed  in  1853  with  pickets 
only  on  two  sides,  the  remainder  of  the  stockade  having  rotted 
down  or  been  removed.  They  constituted  a  dwelling,  tiiree 
or  four  storehouses,  and  some  smaller  buildings  used  as  a 
blacksmith's  shop,  all  of  one  story,  and  built  of  square  logs. 
The  stockade  was  originally  a  square  of  about  seventy  yards; 
one  bastion  remained.  About  thirty  yards  in  the  rear  of  this 
square  were  a  cattle  yard,  hay  shed,  and  so  forth,  enclosing  a 
space  of  forty  by  sixty  yards,  roughly  fenced  in,  and  the  sheds 
covered  with  bark.  On  the  left  of  the  front  were  seven  huts? 
occupied  by  the  lower  employes  of  the  Company.  They  were 
of  rude  construction  and  much  decayed.  On  the  right  of  tiie 
square,  in  the  rear,  at  the  distance  of  a  few  hundred  yards, 
were  three  more  buildings,  used  for  storing  produce.  A  line 
of  huts  for  employes  was  also  strung  along  the  edge  of  the 
terrace  below.  Fort  Colvile  had  formerly  been  a  chief  factor's 
post,  the  highest  ofiice  in  charge  of  a  station,  and  here  the 
annual  accounts  of  the  whole  country  were  consolidated  pre- 
vious to  transmission  across  the  mountains.  I  lea.ned,  how- 
ever, from  Mr.  McDonald  that  this  route  was  to  be' discontin- 
ued. Everything,  in  fact,  denoted  the  evacuation  of  the 
country  by  the  Company.  I  think  it  was  during  this  year 
that  the  last  boat  expedition  from  Fort  Vancouver  to  Colvile 
bringing  goods  in  any  considerable  quantity  by  the  way  of 
the  Columbia  river,  and  the  last  express  across  the  mountains 
from  Colvile  to  York  factory^  took  place.  The  force  at  Fort 
Colville  in  1853  consisted  of  Mr.  McDonald,  then  a  chief 
clerk,  assisted  by  a  trader  and  about  twenty  Canadians  and 
Iraquois  Indians.     In  former  years  goods  were  sent  through 


405 


this  post  to  those  north  of  the  line,  but  th&t  route  had  been 
abandoned.  The  amount  of  furs  collected  there,  as  I  learned 
from  Mr.  McDonald,  was  not  large,  and  came  chiefly  from  the 
upper  Columbia  and  its  branches.  They  were  principally 
bear,  beaver,  muskrat,  martin,  and  fox  skins.  The  beaver 
were  not  considered  to  be  worth  more  in  London  than  the 
cost  at  Colvile.  Behind  Fort  Colvile,  and  elevated  above  it 
about  a  hundred  feet,  is  a  narrow  valley,  bordered  by  ranges 
of  hills,  through  which  runs  a  stream  known  as  Mill  or  White 
Mud  creek.  In  this  valley  the  discharged  servants  of  the 
Company  were  settled  to  the  number  of  fifteen,  mostly  Cana- 
dians and  half-breeds.  The  soil  was  good,  but  most  of  the 
bottoms  marshy,  and  covered  by  the  waters  of  the  creek  dur- 
ing its  freshets.  Their  cabins  were  stretched  along  the  valley 
at  the  foot  of  the  hills  for  a  considerable  distance.  In  thia 
valley  is  a  cattle-post  about  nine  miles  distant  from  the  fort, 
and  a  grist-mill  of- one  pair  of  stones  three  miles  from  the 
fort.  Here  formerly  the  flour  for  the  northern  posts  waa 
ground,  from  wheat  raised  on  the  Company's  farm  near  the 
fort.  This  farm  had  been  once  of  some  extent,  but  only  a 
small  portion  was  cultivated  in  1853.  This  description  of 
Fort  Colvile  and  its  surroundings  I  have  given  from  notes 
carefully  taken  on  the  spot  at  the  time,  part  of  which  were 
embraced  in  my  official  report  heretofore  referred  to,  and  aa 
which  my  memory,  now  refreshed  by  the  same,  is  clear  and 
distinct,  with  the  exception  of  certain  details  of  measurement. 

(All  the  statements  made  from  reports  and  hearsay  objected 
to.) 

Int.  15. — Whether  or  no  you  have  ever  made  any  measure- 
ment of  the  buildings  within  the  picketed  square? 

Ans. — I  did.  I  made  a  plot  of  the  enclosure,  carefully 
stepping  off  the  distances  and  dimensions  of  the  buildings. 
That  plot  is  now  mislaid,  but  the  measurement  and  descrip- 
tion of  the  principal  buildings  I  find  in  my  note-book,  as  fol- 
lows :  "  First,  the  principal  dwelling-house  about  45  by  20, 
of  squared  logs,  one  story,  in  pretty  good  order.  Second,  a 
building  on  the  right  of  it  15  by  20,  one  story,  new  roof,  used 
as  a  storehouse.     Third,  an  old  building  40  by  20,  adjoining 


?l, 


I 


40G 

the  last,  and  used  for  the  same  purpose.  Fourth,  a  dotaclicd 
building  on  the  left  of  the  dwelling  45  by  15.  The  above 
constitute  the  principal  ones.  Their  attics  arc  also  lighted 
at  the  ends.  The  main  dwelling  has  two  rear  buildings,  used 
as  a  kitchen,  &c.  Fifth,  an  old  building,  45  by  15  behind  the 
last.  Sixth  and  seventh,  two  small  ones,  used  as  blacksmith's 
shop,  &c.,  in  a  line  with  the  last,  and  in  the  rear.  Th  pickets 
formerly  enclosed  the  whole  of  these,  forming  a  S(iua>'o  about 
70  yards  on  each  side.  They  have,  however  been  rcninvcd, 
except  on  the  right  of  Nos.  1,  2,  and  3,  where  thoy  enclosed 
a  narrow  yard  containing  a  shed  and  two  small  houses.  One 
bastion  twelve  feet  square  remains  on  the  northwest  corner." 
The  description  of  the  post  in  my  previous  answer  applies 
also  to  my  visit  in  1850,  except  that  I  think  some  repairs  Imd 
been  put  upon  the  dwelling-house  and  one  of  the  stores.  The 
other  buildings  were  more  dilapidated  than  before. 

Int.  16. — What  do  you  know  of  the  character  of  the  flour 
ground  at  the  Company's  mill  on  Mill  creek  ? 

Ans. — The  Northwestern  Boundary  Survey  purchased  a 
small  quantity  of  flour  of  the  Company  in  the  fall  of  1850, 
while  waiting  for  the  arrival  of  its  own  stores.  It  was  so  dark 
and  inferior  in  quality  that  the  employes  refused  to  eat  it, 
and,  if  I  recollect  aright,  we  borrowed  some  from  the  escort  to 
replace  it. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Int.  17. — Whether  or  not  you  spent  a  winter  at  the  United 
States  post,  Fort  Colvile,  some  twelve  or  fifteen  miles  from 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  post  Irno'^n  as  Colvile? 

Ans. — I  did,  the  winter  of  185()-B(>  there,  while  that  post 
was  building. 

Int.  18. — Referring  to  the  buildings  occupied  by  the  North- 
western Boundary  Survey  at  Fort  Colvile,  during  the  winter 
of  1859-60,  how  did  they  compare  in  value  with  the  buildings 
at  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  post  at  Colvile? 

Ans. — They  were  greatly  superior,  both  in  comfort  and 
stability.  I  think  they  were  decidedly  worth  more.  They 
contained  more  glass  and  iron  work,  and  brick  chimneys  in- 
stead of  stone  chimneys.     Comparing  these  buildings,  at  the 


407 


tiini^  of  their  erection  in  1859,  with  the  dihipiihited  condition 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  buildint^s  at  the  same  ptM'iod, 
tlicre  could  bo  no  doubt  as  to  the  great  suj)erlority  in  value  of 
tlie  former,  to  say  nothing  of  the  difllercncc  in  the  cost  of  con- 
struction at  the  different  times  thev  were  erected. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Int.  10. —  IVhat  do  you  know  of  the  Company's  post  at  Fort 
Okaiiagan  ? 

Aiis. — Fort  Okaniigan  is  situated  on  the  rijjht  bank  of  the 
Columbia  river,  n  little  above  the  mouth  of  the  Okinakane.  It 
consisted  of  three  small  houses  enclosed  by  a  stockade.  There 
had  been  some  outbuildings,  but  they  had  been  sulfereil  to 
decay.  There  was  no  appearance  of  business  there  and  no 
goods  on  hand.  One  trader,  a  Canadian,  was  the  only  white 
man  on  the  ground.  A  few  furs  only  were  taken,  and  tlie  post 
clearly  did  not  pay  its  expenses.  The  post  had  once  been  of 
consequence  as  a  stopping-place,  but  was  apparently  kept  up 
for  form  sake.     It  was  in  a  state  of  perfect  squalor. 

Int.  20. — What  do  you  know  of  Fort  Kootenay,  a  post  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — I  spent  some  weeks  in  its  neighborhood  in  the  full  of 
1860.  It  is  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Kootenay  river,  one  of  the 
upper  main  branches  of  the  Columbia,  and  a  little  above  the 
mouth  of  Tobacco  river,  a  few  miles  south  of  the  49th  parallel. 
All  that  there  was  of  it  was  two  small,  worthless  log  cabins. 
Tlicre  was  no  one  at  the  post,  Linktater,  the  trader  in  charge, 
not  having  yet  returned  from  Fort  Colvile.  In  fact,  I  think 
he  never  stopped  there  again,  but  moved  to  a  point  north  of 
the  boundary  line.  The  post  was  occupied  only  during  the 
winter  months,  the  trader  bringing  up  a  fe^r  goods  in  the  fall, 
trading  them  off  with  the  Indians  during  the  winter,  and  car- 
rying the  proceeds  back  to  Colvile  in  the  spring  before  the 
rise  of  the  rivers  rendered  the  trail  impassable.  I  met  him 
coming  up  with  a  small  train  of  horses  and  two  or  three  In- 
dians as  I  went  down  the  river  on  my  way  to  Colvile.  I  re- 
cognize the  building  shown  in  the  photograph  marked  as  being 
a  log  building  at  Kootenay,  which  was  designated  by  the  In- 
dians of  the  neighborhood  as  the  Catholic  Mission. 


tmm^vm^^n^T^n^ 


»i\ 


n' 


M 


408 


Examination  llesumed  June  10,  1867. 

Int.  21. — Describe  Fort  Vancouver,  and  the  land  embraced 
in  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — Fort  Vancouver  is  the  principal  establishment  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  within  the  territories  of  the  United 
States.     It  is  situated  upon  the  right  bank  of  the  Columbia 
river,  about  one  hundred  miles  from  its  mouth,  and  six  milea 
above  the  junction  of  the  Willamette  river.     It  is  a  few  hundred 
yards  from  the  bank.     The  post  was  a  parallelogram,  enclosed 
by  a  stockade  of  200  by  175  yards,  twelve  feet  in  heiglit,  and 
was  defended  by  bastions  on  the  northwest  and  southeast  an- 
gles,  mounted  with  cannon.      Within   were   the   Governor's 
house,  two  smaller  buildings  used  by  clerks,  a  range  of  dwell- 
ings for  families,  and  five  large  two-story  warehouses,  besides 
offices.     Without,   there  was    another  large   store-house,    in 
1853,  occupied  by  the  United  States.     They  were  nearly  all 
built  of  square  logs,  framed  together  after  the  fashion  known 
as  the  Canadian  fashion.     At  some  little  distance  there  was 
also  a  village  of  fifty  or  sixty  cabins,  occupied  by  a  mongrel 
crowd  of  Canadians,  Kanakas,  and  Indians ;  and  chore  was  a 
house,  for  storing  cured  salmon,  on  the  bank  of  the  river.    Of 
the  houses  in  this  village,  the  greater  part  were  built  of  slabs 
from  the  Company  mills ;  a  fev:  only  were  constructed  of  logs, 
and  contained  two  or  three  rooms.     The  buildings  in  and  out- 
side of  the  fort  were  all  old  and  considerably  decayed,  only 
the  repairs  necessary  to  keep  them  in  tenantable  order  having 
been  for  some  years  expended.     There  were  at  that  time  two 
chief  factors  at  the  post,  Messrs.  Peter  Skene  Ogden  and 
Dugald  Mactavish,  with  a  considerable  number  of  clerks  and 
other  employes.     The  claim  of  the  Company  embraced,  as  I 
was  informed  by  Governor  Oi;den,  several  tracts;  first,  the 
claim  on  which  the  fort  and  United  States  barracks  were  sit- 
uated, with  a  small  one  behind  it,  making,  together,  a  tract  of 
about  four  miles  square.     About  one  thousand  acres  were  en- 
closed, or  under  cultivation,  attached  to  which  were  sheds, 
stabling,  and  a  small  dwelling  for  a  farm.     Adjoining  this,  to 


"IpWpBJi^W^ip-'.'iT^lw..  'iwji.ll  nwMJJILi^ 


409 


louse,    in 


the  eastward,  was  another  tract,  known  as  the  Mill  Plane,  two 
and  a  half  by  three-quarter  miles,  on  which  was  a  saw-mill  hav- 
ing tolerable  wattr-power,  but  subject  to  stoppage  during  fresh- 
ets. Besides  the  above,  they  claimed  two  other  small  prairies 
behind  the  first  mentioned,  which  are  respectively  a  half  and 
one  mile  -quare.  The  above  were  the  lands  which  I  understood 
from  Mr.  Ogden  to  be  in  their  then  actual  occupation.  They 
claimed,  however,  as  I  was  informed  by  him,  some  20  miles  along 
the  Columbia  river,  but  to  what  distance  back  he  did  not  men- 
tion. These  diflferent  tracts  were  separated  by  belts  of  wood. 
Concerning  what  is  called  the  Mill  Plain,  I  have  but  little 
recollection.  The  so-called  Fort  Plain,  on  which  were  situ- 
ated both  the  Company's  fort  and  the  United  States  barracks, 
was  about  1,000  yards  deep  from  the  Columbia  river  to  the 
woods  behind  the  latter.  The  lower  part  is  meadow,  liable  to 
be  submerged  by  the  annual  freshet,  the  rear  rising,  by  a 
grndual  slope,  to  a  height  of  100  feet.  From  the  Company's 
post  to  the  mouth  of  the  Cathlapootl  river,  extended  a  belt  of 
alluvial  land,  intersected  by  ponds  and  sloughs,  and  almost 
entirely  overflowed  during  the  summer.  This  averaged  from 
one  to  three  miles  in  depth  from  the  river  back  to  the  rising 
ground,  but  hardly  anywhere  did  the  land  itself  occupy  more 
than  a  mile  of  this  depth,  the  rest  being  permanently  covered 
by  water.  The  immediate  bank  of  the  river,  as  is  usual  with 
alluvial  deposits,  was  somewhat  higher  than  the  ground  directly 
behind  it,  and,  where  aot  actually  overflowed,  would  have  con- 
stituted a  natural  levee  against  the  freshets.  Such,  however, 
is  the  porous  charactci"  of  the  soil  that  the  waters  percolating 
through  and  under  these  banks  overflows  the  land  behind  be- 
fore it  reaches  their  top.  The  rise  of  the  river  usually  com^ 
monces  in  May,  and  continues,  with  interruptions,  until  July, 
gradually  subsiding  during  the  latter  part  of  that  month  and 
August,  ocoasion^^Uy  i  iching  the  height  of  19  or  20  feet. 
The  te^^"". nature  of  the  water,  which  is  between  40  to  60  de- 
grees J;  atirenheit,  durjiig  this  period,  is  suflicient  to  destroy 
many  kinds  of  vegetation  ;  and  the  season,  after  the  subsidence, 
is  too  short  to  plant  the  usual  crops.  The  deposit  from  the 
water,  moreover,  is  a  sand  derived  from  the  attrition  of  rocks, 


410 

without  chemical  decomposition,  and  does  not  tend  to  fertilize 
the  ground.  The  higher  ground  lack  of  Vancouver,  and 
thence  to  the  foot  of  the  mountains,  is  gravelly  and  poor,  ex- 
cept that  on  tlio  banks  of  the  streams  there  arc  narrow  skirts 
of  rich  soil.  This  gravelly  country  is  speedily  cxhaustc  ',  two 
crops  of  wheat  being  as  much  as  it  will  produce.  The  timi)or 
on  the  bottom  lands  of  the  Columbia  is  ciiiefly  Cottonwood; 
on  the  smaller  streams,  vine  maple,  and  alder.  The  upland 
is  covered  with  the  usual  growth  of  the  Coast  region  of  Ore- 
gon, the  Douglas  fir  predominating.  This  forest  is  almost 
entirely  of  secondary  growth,  and  has  been  deadened  over  a 
large  tract  of  country  by  fires,  which  have  run  through  it. 
There  is,  besides,  a  general  want  of  moisture  in  the  soil,  every 
thing  parching  after  the  conclusion  of  the  rainy  season. 

(The  statements  made  from  hearsay  objected  to.) 

lilt.  22. — What  do  you  know  of  Sauvie's  Island,  and  the 
Company's  farm  there? 

Ans. — The  island  is  a  trrct  of  similar  country  to  that  bor- 
dering the  Columbia  on  the  opposite  side,  filled  with  sloughs 
and  shallow  ponds,  which  occupy  at  least  half  of  its  surface. 
It  is  so  much  subject  to  overflow,  that  during  the  season  of  the 
freshet  the  cattle  were  sometimes  obli<jed  to  swim  to  the  niain 
land.  These  lands,  however,  after  ihe  subsidence  of  the 
freshet,  produced  good  grass.  With  regard  to  the  Company's 
farm,  I  never  stopped  there  but  once.  The  house  was  on  the 
bank  of  the  Columbia,  and  I  camped  out  of  doors  without 
going  into  it. 

Itit.  23. — What  trade  was  carried  on  at  Vancouver,  and 
with  whom? 

.  Ans. — From  1849,  when  I  first  went  into  the  country,  on- 
ward, the  trade  was  almost  entirely  with  citizens,  and  was 
general  merchandising.  The  Indian  population  had  almost 
entirely  disappeared  from  the  lower  Columbia,  but  three  or 
four  wretched  individuals  survived,  who  certainly  did  no  ^ 
trading.  A  few  Klikatats  occasionally  came  down  fr  le 
mountains   to    trade    horses   and   dressed   skins.  ars 

gathered  at  Colvile  and  the  other  upper  posts,  were  ar:e 

still  brought  down  to  Vancouver  for  exportation;  bu       •>  In- 


0  fertilize 
iver,  and 
poor,  ox- 
•ow  skirts 
istc  ' .  two 
'ho  timiior 
;tonwoo(l; 
lie  upland 
<n  of  Ore- 
is  almost 
ed  over  a 
irough  it. 
5oil,  every 
son. 


411 

Jian  trade  of  tlio  post  itself  may  be  considered  to  liavc  Civiscd. 
A  portion  of  their  ;:;oods  were  shipped  to  San  Francisco,  annthcr 
portion  disposed  of  to  merchants  on  the  WMlaniette,  or  by  the 
Company's  agents  there,  the  Indian  goods  being  chicHy  sent 
to  A'ictoria. 

Int.  24. — What  do  vou  know  of  cattle  and  horses  at  I'fvt 
Vancouver,  and  of  their  alleged  destruction  by  settlers? 

Ans. — Prior  to  1H49  it  is  impossible  that  many  cattle  euuM 
jiavc  been  driven  oft"  b}''  Americans,  for  even  in  the  year  l>;4i) 
tjie  number  of  Atnerican  settlers  about  there  was  ompara- 
tively  small,  aiul  most  of  them  had  gone  to  the  mi  les.  I  rc- 
uiember  that  when,  in  1858,  Captain  MeClellan's  expedition 
started  from  Vancouver  for  the  mountains.  Governor  Ogdou 
.rated,  in  my  presence,  that  he  would  fiml  cattle  that  had  iiin 

1  in  the  woods,  and  authorize<l  him  to  kill  what  he  no 'Ud 
for  the  use  of  his  party.  But,  although  we  had  two  expe- 
rienced professional  hunters  with  us,  avo  never  saw  horn  or 
hoof  mark  until  we  got  into  the  Indian  country,  on  the  other 
side  of  the  mountains.  As  to  the  horses,  the  Company  could 
not  have  kept  many  at  that  place,  as  all  their  own  travel  from 
there  was  by  water;  and  when  we  wished  to  purchase  our  out- 
fit from  them,  we  Avere  obliged  to  wait  some  days  for  Governor 
Ogdcn  to  send  over  and  purchase  them  from  the  Indians. 

Int.  25. — What  was  the  value  of  Fort  Vancouver  as  a  town 
site? 

J«s.-  -Ai'coiding  to  my  observation,  Vancouver  never  would 
have  made  .'i-.j  important  town  site,  for  the  reason  that  it  has* 
no  b.  ek  00  j'ltry  for  its  support  on  the  north  side  of  the  river, 
and  is  too  i'-\r  a,I  c,vc  the  mouth  of  the  Willamette  for  the  produce 
of  the  Will -.iiotte  valley  to  have  reached  it, 'even  if  the  title  had 
been  oKar  in  the  Company.  It  possesses  great  attraction  from 
its  beauty  of  situation,  and  the  natural  lay  of  the  land;  but 
it  was  better  suited  for  a  trading  or  military  post  than  a  town. 

Int.  20, — Where  did  the  timber  come  from  of  which  tlie 
Hu':  ion's  Bay  and  military  posts  at  Vancouver  were  built,  and 
V'h"'  was  the  quality  of  the  timber? 

An-. '  Most  of  the  timber  came  from  the  public  lands  in  the 
immediate  vicinity.      It  was  fur,  a  species  of  timber  which 


iilll.i»iHJHJifi»ijpiiR^*p*w 


'f 


412 

readily  decays  when  in  contact  with  the  ground.  Most  of  the 
forest  behind  the  post  had  been  deadened  by  the  fires  which 
had  swept  through  it,  and  on  some  occasion  must  have  threa- 
tened the  post  itself. 

I7it.  27. — Look  at  the  photographs  here  exhibited,  and  say 
whether  they  correctly  represent  the  buildings  at  Fort  Van- 
couver? 

Ans. — They  correctly  represent  two  angles  of  the  interior 
of  the  square,  the  first  showing  the  Governor's  house  and  an 
office  on  the  north  side,  and  the  Ion  ^  low  of  buildings  occupiod 
by  families  on  the  east.  The  S'  cond  exhibits  the  northwesr, 
corner,  showin-,'  the  Company's  sale  shop  and  part  of  a  store- 
house, with  a  ht.,  md  another  building,  the  use  of  which 
I  do  not  remember. 

Int.  28. — Do  you  know  anything  of  an  orchard  at  Fort  Van- 
couver? 

Ans. — There  was  a  field  enclosed  and  planted  in  apple  trees 
directly  back  of  the  fort,  but  my  recolletstion  of  them  is  that 
they  were  natural  and  not  grafted  trees. 

Int.  29. — What  salmon  fisheries  were  there  on  the  Columbia 
river,  and  by  whom  carried  on? 

Ans. — Salmon  fisheries  were  carried  on  almost  altogether 
by  Indians.  Positions  for  them  were  found  almost  everywhere. 
Owing  to  the  diminution  in  the  number  of  the  Indians,  how- 
ever, the  places  where  it  was  actually  pursued  were  but  few. 
In  1850  they  fished  at  Chinook,  Pillar  rock,  at  Pretty  Girl'g 
village,  at  Wakanasissee,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Clackamas,  on 
the  Willamette,  at  the  Cascades,  and  elsewhere. 

Int.  30. — What  was  the  general  state  of  the  fur  trade  in 
1849  in  Oregon,  and  subsequently? 

Ans. — The  fur  trade  was  greatly  on  the  decline,  and  the  evi- 
dences of  its  decay  were  to  be  seen  at  all  the  Company's  posts 
I  visited.  At  Astoria  no  furs  at  all  were  taken.  At  Chi- 
nook, as  I  have  elsewhere  stated,  but  a  few  sea  otters.  Beavers 
were  so  abundant  in  the  streams  within  striking  distance  of 
the  settlements  that  their  signs  were  everywhere  to  be  seen. 
Governor  Ogden  told  me,  as  early  as  1850,  that  American 
Oregon  never  was  a  fur  country,  except  "or  beaver;  that  their 


413 

skins  (lid  not  then  pay  to  transport  to  London,  and  that,  not 
paying  for  transportation  to  London,  they  were  not  hunted 
much,  and  had  become  as  abundant  as  they  were  in  the  first 
flush  of  the  fur  trade.  Although  they  purchased  all  the  furs 
brought  on  to  them  by  Indians,  as  a  matter  of  policy,  they 
cared  nothing  for  the  beaver.  Mr.  McDonald,  the  clerk  in 
charge  of  Fort  Colville,  also  told  me  in  1853,  and  repeated 
the  statement  in  1859-60,  that  the  fur  trade  did  not  pay  its 
expenses,  and  that  they  retained  their  posts  only  until  a  set- 
tlement should  be  made  Avith  the  United  States.  In  fact,  this 
was  a  matter  of  notoriety  throughout  the  country,  palpable 
from  their  reduced  establishments,  decayed  buildings,  and  the 
unsettled  feeling  of  their  employes. 

(The  statements  of  Ogden  and  McDonald  made  to  the  wit- 
ness objected  to,  and  the  matter  of  notoriety  also  objected  to.) 

Examination  Resumed  J%me  11,  1867. 


1 
1 


Int.  31. — Do  you  know  the  amount  of  furs  actually  collected 
in  Oregon  in  any  one  year  ? 

An%. — I  think  it  was  in  the  year  1855  that  Mr.  Angus 
McDonald,  the  officer  in  charge  at  Fort  Colvile,  by  way  of 
experiment,  brought  over  the  yearly  collection  of  furs  from 
that  place  to  Fort  Nisqually  by  way  of  the  Nahchess  Pass. 
He  had  with  him  a  brigade  of  200  horses,  carrying  two  packs 
apiece  of  90  pounds  each.  That  was  the  only  occasion  upon 
which  I  happened  to  know  the  amount  of  furs  collected  in  the 
interior,  or  on  which  the  train  came  to  Puget's  Sound.  I  saw 
the  furs  afterwards  opened  at  Fort  Nisqually,  where  they 
were  shown  me  by  Dr.  Tolmie,  and  considered  that  most  of  the 
skins  were  of  inferior  value,  that  is  of  the  commoner  kinds. 

Int.  32. — What  general  improvements  of  the  country  had 
the  Company  introduced  in  the  way  of  roads,  &c.  ? 

An%. — No  important  ones.  The  Company  was  content  for 
the  most  part  with  following  the  ordinary  Indian  trails,  ex- 
pending no  unnecessary  labor,  but  merely  cutting  or  burning 
out  logs  occasionally,  where  the  obstructions  could  not  be 
gotten  over  otherwise.     There  were  a  few  miles  of  track  of 


^wr 


414 

about  tlio  cluivacter  of  ordinary  wood  roads  at  and  around 
Fort  Vancouver  connecting  tlio  different  prairies.  They  had 
also  cut  out  so  much  of  the  trail  from  Cowlitz  landing  to  Fort 
Nisqually  as  ran  through  tlie  woods,  say  about  one-fouvih  of 
the  distance,  which  whole  distance  is  l)etween  60  and  70  miles. 
Some  little  necessary  road  work  had  also  been  made  at  Fort 
Nisqually  and  at  Fort  Colvile,  but  nothing  that  desc,  - 
tion.  The  route  from  Colvile  to  the  Flatlieads  and  Kootenav 
posts  was  entirely  unworked;  that  portion  of  the  same  which 
followed  the  rivers  they  traversed  only  in  spring  and  fall, 
at  seasons  of  low  water,  making  their  way  along  the  bank  as 
best  they  might.  The  road  party  of  the  Northwestern  Bound- 
ary Survey,  varying  from  8  to  18  men,  employed  at  a  time, 
cut  out  more  road  in  cither  one  of  three  seasons,  making'  a 
clear  track  of  8  feet  wide,  grading  up  and  down  hill  where  it 
was  necessary,  and  constructing  bridges,  some  of  considerable 
length,  than  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  done  during  its 
whole  occupancy  of  the  country,  so  far  as  any  mark  of  axe  or 
hoof  could  show  it. 

Int.  33. — How  did  the  Pacific  Railroad  and  the  North- 
western Boundary  Survey  supply  themselves  with  stores,  by 
the  Columbia  river  or  otherwise? 

(This  question  objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Ans. — Tlie  Pacific  Railroad  Survey,  under  Captain  McClel- 
lan,  in  the  first  place,  took  its  provisions  from  Fort  Vancouver 
across  the  mountains  by  an  Indian  trail  south  of  Mount  St. 
Helens,  cutting  it  out  sufficiently  for  the  purposes  of  passage. 
It  afterwards  sent  over  the  NahchessPass  to  Fort  Steilacoitm 
for  fresh  supplies.  The  Boundary  Surve}'  transported  its 
provisions  by  a  route  cut  out  by  its  own  employes  from  Chil- 
oweyuck  depot,  on  Frazer  river,  to  Fort  Colvile,  and  thence  by 
the  route  before  referred  to  to  the  Rock^  Mountains.    DuriiK' 

ft  o 

the  time  that  the  post  at  Colvile  was  maintaineb  goods  ami 
provisions  of  all  kinds  were  brought  there  by  land,  either  from 
Wallula  or  the  White  Bluffs,  usually  by  the  former.  The 
Columbia  river  above  the  White  Bluffs  was  not  used  by  them 
at  all,  land  transportation  being  mere  certain  and  speedy, 
cheaper  and  less  laborious,  than  by  way  of  the  Columbia  river. 
(The  above  question  and  answer  objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 


415 


Int.  34. — IIow  have  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ol  late 
carried  on  their  transportation  to  Colvile? 

Am. — For  several  years  before  18G0,  when  I  left  there,  they 
had  obtained  their  supplies  from  Victoria  hy  way  of  Frazer 
river  and  the  pass  of  the  mountains  between  Fort  Hope  and 
the  Siniilkamcen. 

Int.  35. — What  effect,  if  any,  has  the  discovery  of  gold  on 
the  Columbia  river  and  its  tributaries  had  on  the  Company's 
business  ? 

Ans. — Up  to  the  time  of  my  leaving  the  country,  late  in 
1860,  't  had  a  slight  and  transient  influence.  In  1854, 1  think 
it  was,  gold  was  discovered  at  the  junction  of  Clarke's  fork 
and  the  Columbia,  about  30  miles  above  Fort  Colvile,  and 
some  excitement  was  caused,  quite  a  number  of  persons  flock- 
ing to  those  diggings.  It  proved,  however,  that  the  gold  here 
was  limited  to  a  small  space,  and  the  spot  was  soon  deserted, 
except  by  a  very  few  persons.  In  1859,  gold  was  discovered 
by  the  Boundary  Survey  upon  the  Similkameen,  near  its  junc- 
tion with  the  Okinakane,  and  subsequently  upon  Rock  creek, 
a  branch  of  theNehoialpilkuro,  which  enters  the  Columbia  op- 
posite Colvile,  At  this  time,  however,  the  establishment  of 
the  United  States  post  at  Fort  Colvile,  and  the  building  of  a 
small  village  in  this  neighborhood,  at  which  stores  and  miners' 
goods  were  kept,  and  the  running  of  pack-trains  loaded  with 
provisions  from  Oregon  to  the  mines,  prevented  the  Company 
from  deriving  much  advantage  from  the  discovery.  These 
places  also  proved  of  no  lasting  productiveness.  What  effect 
the  more  recent  discovery  of  mines  in  what  are  Idaho  and 
Montana  Territorii  may  have  had,  I  do  not  know.  But  I 
think  that  shorter  and  more  practicable  routes  would  be  adapted 
better  than  any  by  Fort  Colvile. 

Int.  36. — What  has  been  the  policy  of  the  Company  in 
regard  to  the  settlement  of  the  country  by  Americans,  so  far 
as  you  have  learned  ? 

Ans. — I  have  conversed  freely  with  officers  of  the  Hudson's 

Bay  Company  upon  the  subject  of  its  settlement,  as  well  as 

with  early  emigrants  to  Oregon.     The  policy  of  the  Company, 

as  fur  traders,  as  I  learned  from  them,  was  decidedly  hostile 

27  H 


^'1 


I 


m 


p 
i! 


416 

to  it.  The  late  Dr.  McLaughlin  informed  me  that  he  had  hccn 
severely  censured  at  home  for  his  supposed  encouragement  of 
immigration,  and  Mr.  Ogden,  speaking  of  the  colonization  of 
Vancouver  Island,  in  its  relati&n  to  the  Jtftairs  of  the  Company, 
said  that  it  was  a  scheme  of  Mr.  Douglass  to  make  himself  a 
Governor,  adding,  "What  have  we  to  do  with  Colonics — for  niy 
own  part,  I  am  a  fur-trader.""  The  officers  of  the  Company  diil 
not  hesitate  to  express  their  disappointment  at  the  settlement 
of  the  boundary  by  the  49th  parallel^  instead  o-f  the  Coiumbitv 
river,  as  they  had  expected. 

(Statements  o>f  officers  objected  to.) 

Int.  37. — Were  or  were  not  their  own  employes  encouragcl 
to  take  up  lands,  and  was  it  not  a  matter  of  complaint,  liv 
American  settlers,  after  the  treaty,  that  they  should  IVave  been 
admitted  to  this  right? 

Ans. — They  were;  and  several  small  colonies  of  discharged 
servants  were  formed  accordingly.  One  was  in  the  valley  of 
the  Willamette,  at  what  is  known  as  the  French  prairie.  There 
was  a  small  settlement  of  them  on  the  Nisqually  Plains,  about 
Muck,  and  what  is  called  the  Canadian  Plain  ;  and  nearly  all 
the  land  in  the  small  valley  back  ef  Fort  Colvilc  was  occupied 
in  the  same  way  by  their  people.  In  particular,  the  settlement 
in  the  Willamette  Valley  was  cemplained  of,  as  having  been 
made  south  of  the  Columbia  river. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to.) 

Int.  38. — How  was  the  war  of  1847,  commo'nly  called  the 
Cayuse  War,  begun,  by  which  the  Company,  as  is  stated,  suf- 
fered great  interruptien  in  its  trade,  and  what  Indians  were 
engaged  therein  ? 

An^. — ^The  war  was  coiamenced  by  the  massacre  of  Dr, 
Whitman,  his  wife,  and  other  persons,  and  the  abduction  of 
several  young  women  from  the  missian  established  by  him  neav 
the  Walla-Walla  river,  some  miles  above  the  fort.  The  Indi- 
ans engaged  in  it  were  chiefly  Cayuse  and  Walla- Wallas,  with 
some  few  from  the  adjoining  tribes.  This  lead  to  an  expedi- 
tion from  the  Willamette  Valley  to  punish  the  aggressors.  On 
this  occasion  it  was  that  Governor  Ogden  promptly  interfered 
and  ransomed  the  women.. 


417 


(Question  and  answer  objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Int.  3U. — What  was  the  Company's  policy  towards  the  In- 
dians, fo  far  as  it  fell  under  your  observation  ? 

Ana. — The  policy  of  the  Company  was  dictated  by  a  wise 
consideration  of  its  own  interests.  They  were  every  where 
pacificators  of  the  feuds  which  existed  between  the  different 
tribes,  and  they  promptly  punished  aggressions  upon  them- 
selves, and  extended  their  protection  and  assistance  to  the 
American  settlers  also,  although  they  avoided  identifying  their 
interests  with  those  of  the  latter.  As  regards  the  Indians, 
however,  their  system  of  tra<lc  was  calculated  to  impoverish 
them,  the  amount  paid  for  furs  or  other  articles"  of  trade  being 
vastly  disproportloncd  to  their  value,  and  in  objects  of  a  char- 
acter suited  to  gratify  their  vanity,  rather  than  to  improve 
their  actual  condition.  So  far  as  any  moral  or  religious  in- 
struction was  concerned  they  did  nothing. 

Int.  40. — Do  you  know  of  any  obstructions  at  the  portages 
of  the  Columbia  river  by  which  the  Company  was  hindered 
ill  using  them? 

Ans. — None  whatever.  The  only  point  where  an  obstruc- 
tion might  be  supposed  tc  exist  is  at  the  Cascades,  where  the 
laud  is  claimed  under  the  donation  act  by  citizens;  but  no 
obstacles  have  ever  been  offered  to  my  ktiowledge  to  the  pas- 
sage of  any  one  there.  Steamboats  and  railroads,  affording 
much  easier  means  of  communication  than  bateaux,  it  is  not 
likely  that  they  will  be  resorted  to. 

Int.  41. — Do  you  know  anything  of  the  Kettle  Falls  near 
Colvile,  and  of  their  value  for  manufacturing  purposes? 

Am. — The  Kettle  Falls  constitute  a  mixed  rapid  and  cas- 
cade, broken  by  rocks  extending  across  the  whole  width  of 
the  Columbia  river.  Its  value  for  manufacturing,  or  other 
purposes  than  as  a  fishery,  is  nothing.  In  the  first  place, 
almost  every  stream  throughout  the  country  affords  one  or 
more  water-powers  more  easily  manageable,  and  sufficient  for 
all  ordinary  purposes.  In  the  second  place,  if  every  foot  of 
habitable  land  within  available  distance  of  these  falls  was 
inhabited  and  cultivated  it  could  not  produce  raw  material 
enough  to  make  their  use  profitable. 


^ 


418 


Vi-'i 


if!'*  1 


Int.  42. — Did  you  ever  hear  Dr.  McLouglilin  speak  of  the 
indebtedness  of  the  citizens  to  liim  ? 

(Objected  to  as  irrelevant  and  incompetent.) 

Ans. — Dr.  McLoughlin  complained  to  me  of  the  mode  in 
which  he  liad  been  treated  by  the  settlers ;  that  they  owcn] 
him  about  $30,000  for  advances  made  to  them  during  early 
times  in  the  country,  and  that  the  men  Avho  owed  most  wore 
most  abusive  of  him.  At  the  same  time  ho  mentioned  tht- 
censure  that  he  had  received  from  his  own  countrymen  for  en- 
couraging immigration. 

Int.  43. — Do  you  know  any  other  matter  touching  the  claim 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  United  States,  or 
is  there  any  explanation  which  you  wish  to  make? 

Ayis. — I  wish  to  make  a  statement  touching  certain  of  my 
acts  as  deputy  collector  of  the  district  of  Oregon,  and  the 
correspondence  which  I  held  with  Governor  Ogden  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  printed  in  the  documentary  evidence 
of  the  Company,  and  to  which  my  attention  has  been  neces- 
sarily drawn  while  reading  the  proofs.  In  my  official  letter 
written  by  me  to  Governor  Ogden  1st,  March,  1850,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  General  Adair,  who  was  then  in  San  Francisco,  ami 
a  postscript  dated  March  10,  1850,  I  explained  certain  pro- 
visions in  the  revcnije  laws  for  the  guidance  of  the  Company 
in  their  future  importations.  This  was  done  simply  as  a  mat- 
ter of  courtesy  to  them,  for  it  was  their  duty  beforehand  to 
know  and  follow  the  provisions  of  law  in  the  United  States. 
As  it  was,  I  incurred  a  dangerous  responsibility  in  granting 
the  permit,  and  giving  credit  for  duties  as  I  did.  The  Com- 
pany, I  may  mention,  had  claimed  and  insisted  that  their  goods 
imported  from  foreign  countries  should  be  admitted  free  of 
duty,  and  accordingly  paid  the  duties  under  protest,  althougli 
those  bought  by  American  citizens  were  charged.  In  no  case 
were  duties  charged  upon  American  goods  imported  by  the 
Company,  except  in  one,  occurring  in  1853,  when  goods  alloged 
to  be  such  were  imported  from  England,  but  without  certifi- 
cate of  origin.  In  that  case  a  part  of  the  cargo  consisteii  of 
tobacco  and  flour,  and  I  extracted  the  duties  thereon,  leaving 
it  to  the  company  to  obtain  the  proper  consular  certificate. 


43 

ami  npply  for  reimbursement  in  usual  form.  And  I  unhesi- 
tatingly say,  that  no  vexatious  embarrassments  were  thrown 
ill  the  way  of  the  Company  by  mo,  either  while  deputy  under 
General  Adair,  or  subsequently  when  collector  myself;  nor, 
so  far  as  I  know,  by  General  Adair.  On  the  contrary,  I  went 
beyond  the  law  in  affording  facilities,  which  nothing  but  the 
necessities  of  the  country  would  have  justified.  Forfeitures 
which  might  have  been  exacted,  and  by  which  money  could 
have  been  made,  were,  on  more  than  one  occasion,  passed 
by  or  remitted.  As  regards  the  Prince  of  Wales,  I  have  to 
say  that,  in  preventing  her  from  carrying  on  trade  not  con- 
nected with  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  or  British  subjects, 
trading  with  the  same,  I  acted  in  accordance  with  the  require- 
ments of  the  revenue  laws,  and  under  the  advice  of  Mr.  Hol- 
brook,  the  United  States  district  attorney,  who  was  present 
when  the  order  to  her  master  was  issued.  The  stoppage  had 
nothing  to  do  with  any  interest  that  I  might  have  had  in  the 
steamer  referred  to  by  Mr.  Ogden.  That  interest  was,  in  fact, 
contingent,  that  is  to  say,  I  had  the  refusal  of  a  share  in  her 
for  the  consideration  of,  I  think,  $1,000.  I  never  paid  for, 
and  consequently  never  really  owned  it,  though  I  believe  it 
was  made  out  in  my  name,  and  a  short  time  afterwards,  at  my 
own  instance,  the  agreement  was  cancelled.  For  the  rest,  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  were  not  entitled  by  the  treaty  to  the 
navigation  of  the  Willamette,  but  solely  to  that  of  the  main 
stream.  The  case  of  the  French  ships  was  not  in  point,  as 
they  were  not  coasters,  but  brought  in  dutiable  goods  consigned 
to  Oregon  City,  and  left  France  not  knowing  that  any  port 
of  entry  had  been  established.  They  were  permitted  by  Gen- 
eral Adair  to  ascend  the  river  from  the  necessity  of  the  case, 
there  being  no  warehouses  at  Astoria,  nor  means  of  transpor- 
tation thence  up,  except  in  the  original  vessels. 


Cross-Examination  taken  this  lith  day  of  June,  1867. 


Int.  1. — Where  was  your  place  of  residence,  or  where  did 
you  spend  your  time  between  the  spring  of  1851,  after  your 
visit  to  Champoeg,  and  the  1st  of  January,  1853? 


420 


b*?'ii; 


Ans. — I  went  down  to  California  that  summer,  and  was  om- 
ployed  on  an  expedition  to  treat  with  the  Indians  of  North- 
western California.  On  my  return  from  there,  late  in  the  fall, 
I  went  up  to  Oregon,  and  again  returned  to  California.  I 
spent  the  rest  of  the  winter  at  Humboldt  bay,  and  in  tlio  spiiinr 
went  into  the  Klamath  river  mines,  where  I  worked  until  late 
in  the  fall.  Hearing  of  my  appointment  as  collector  of  Asto- 
ria, I  went  down  to  San  Francisco,  and  thence  back  to  Orej'oii. 
where  I  arrived  late  in  December,  and  entered  upon  the  dufie^. 
of  the  offio. 

hit.  2. — What  was  the  size  of  the  buildings  at  Astoria  that 
you  have  described  at  huts? 

Ans. — I  think  the  largest  one  may  have  possibly  been  30  or 
40  feet  in  length,  the  others  from  20  to  25.  I  speak  merely 
from  recollection,  and  I  suppose  the  term  hut  applies  not  so 
much  as  to  size  as  to  character. 

Jnt  3. — Were  not  these  buildings  shingled? 

Ans. — I  think  they  were  covered  with  shakes. 

Int.  4. — Were  you  ever  inside  the  largest  of  these  buildings'; 

Ans. — I  think  I  have  been  several  times. 

Int.  5. — Of  what  was  it  built? 

Ans. — Of  logs  chinked. 

Int.  6. — Was  it  not  built  of  square  logs,  ceiled  inside,  with  a 
sbiogle  roof? 

Ars. — My  impression  is  that  the  logs  were  roughly  squared, 
that  ij  to  say,  the  sides  partially  flattened  with  the  axe.  As 
to  any  ceiling  I  have  no  recollection ;  as  I  have  said  before,  I 
think  it  was  covered  with  shakes. 

Int.  7. — Was  there  not  a  person  in  charge,  and  in  possession 
of  this  post  at  Astoria,  when  Major  Hatheway  arrived  there  J" 

Ans. — That  I  cannot  say,  hue  sometime  during  the  year 
1850  the  Company  had  a  man  named  Edward  Spencer  down 
there  to  receive  goods. 

Int.  8. — How  far  is  the  custom-house,  where  you  were,  from 
this  post? 

Ans. — The  custom-house  in  1850  was  one  mile  east  of  the 
post.  In  January,  1853,  when  I  was  collector,  I  moved  it 
down  to  a  house  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  post. 


421 


Int.  9. — How  many  times,  between  your  first  ftrrival  at  As- 
toria and  the  time  of  Major  Hatheway's  taking  nossessiiju  of 
the  post,  ^ore  you  at  the  post,  and  inside  of  either  the  main 
Ijuilding  or  the  store  there? 

AnS. — I  was  back-wards  and  forwards  between  the  custom- 
liouse  and  the  village  of  Astoria  during  that  winter,  at  least 
once  or  twi&e  a  week,  passing  by  the  Hudson's  Buy  buildings, 
but  I  do  not  think  there  was  any  store  opened,  not  any  other 
tlian  a  merely  r^onJin^fl,l  occupancy,  -even  if  there  was  tbat. 

Inf.  10. — How  many  times  were  you,  during  the  period 
aiontioned,  inside  any  of  the  buildings  at  the  Company's  post? 

A)t«. — I  have  i»ot  the  mest  remote  recollection. 

Int.  IL — Were  you  inside  any  of  them  at  any  time  during 
the  period  mentioned?  If  so,  state  -which  building  it  was, 
•whether  shortly  after  your  *rriv-al  there,  or  later,  and  who 
you  found  there? 

An6. — As  I  have  stiid  before,  I  cannot  tnalce  any  answer  to 
•tiiat  question.  At  this  distance  of  time,  so  trivial  a  fact  as 
the  entering  a  Hudson^s  Bay  house  at  Astoria  would  not  re- 
main in  tny  memory.  If  any  store  was  kept  there,  I  should 
-undoubtedly  ha^ve  visited  it,  as  there  was  then  only  one  other, 
I  think,  at  the  place. 

Int.  12. — Where  did  Major  Hatlieway  stop  on  bis  first  ar- 
rival at  Astoria? 

Ans. — He  may  liave  stopped  over  night  at  General  Adair^s, 
as  there  was  already  an  oflBcer  witb  a  detachment  of  troops 
there.  But  I  think  they  went  immediately  down  to  the  point 
•where  the  post  was. 

Int.  13. — Did  you  meet  and  converse  with  Major  Hathcway 
at  General  Adair^s,  or  Astoria,  before  he  occupied  the  Com- 
pany's posf? 

Ans. — I  don't  know,  if  I  saw  h'im,  most  likely. 

Int.  14. — Where -were  yoa  when  Major  Hatheway  arrived  at 
Astoria? 

Ah9. — I  presume  I  was  at  General  Adair's.  I  might  have 
been  up  the  river. 

Int.  15. — State,  if  you  can,  when  you  first  saw  Major  Hath- 
cway, after  his  arrival  at  Astoria,  and  where  you  saw  him  ? 


i«! 


•^'^Hi;li 


422 

Ans. — That  wonlcl  be  utterly  impossible. 

Int.  16. — Was  there  nat  two  acres  of  cleared  land  surroanif- 
ing  the  post  at  Astoria? 

Ans. — I  should  think  there  was  about  that. 

Int.  17. — Were  you  at  Astoiia,  when  Major  Hatheway  left' 

An8. — No;  I  left  before  he  did. 

Int.  18. — At  what  time  did  yon  revisit  Astoria  after  you 
left  it,  as  stated  in  your  last  answer? 

Ans. — In  speaking  of  leaving  Astoria,  I  referred  to  my  going 
to  California,  not  to  Champoeg.  On  my  return,  some  tiuie 
during  the  winter  of  1851-52,  Major  Hatheway  had'  trans- 
ferred his  headquarters  to  Vancouver.  Colonel  Loring,  Tvitli 
the  regiment  of  mounted  riflemen,  having  been  ordered  Lome, 

Int.  ID. — When  did  Major  Ilatheway  arrive  at  Astc ria? 

Ans. — I  think  in  the  spring  or  early  summer  of  1850. 

Int.  20. — If  you  were  in  California  at  the  tii  .e  Major  Hath- 
eway left,  how  can  you  state  of  your  own  knowledge  how  long; 
he  remained  at  Astoria? 

A718. — In  the  first  place,  I  don't  think  I  have  stated  of  my 
own  knowledge  how  long  he  remained  there.  In  the  second 
place,  I  judge  of  the  time  he  left  there-  by  seeing  him  there  at 
one  time  and  at  Vancouver  at  another. 

Inf.  21- — Were  you  not  absent  s'x  months  in  California? 

An.'?. — There,  or  thereabouts^ 

Int.  22. — How  can  you  tell  of  your  own  personal  knowlodgc 
at  what  time  during  your  absence  in  California  Major  Hath- 
eway left  Astoria? 

Ans. — I  .lave  not  pretended  to  do  it. 

Int.  23. — Have  you  not  stated  in  your  examination-in-chicf 
that  IMajor  Hathaway  came  down  in  the  spring  or  summer  of 
1850,  and  have  you  not  made  this  further  statement — ^"he  re- 
mained there,  I  think,  a  year?" 

Ans. — I  have  made  that  statoment. 

Int.  24. — "Who  besides  yourself,  at  the  time  yon  were  first 
at  Astoria,  considered  the  site  as  the  property  of  the  United 
States  Government? 

Ans. — The  settlers  and  Americans  generally,  who  knew  the 
circumstances  of  the  capture  of  the  fort  during  the  war,  and' 


423 


its  surrender  to  the  United  States  at  the  conclusion  thereof. 
It  was  also  the  impression  of  the  oflBcers  of  the  Ar.ny  when 
thoy  made  a  requisition  for  possession  on  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  and,  if  I  mistake  not,  recognized  by  the  offitors  of 
the  Company  at  the  time. 

Int.  25. — Give  the  name,  if  you  can  do  so,  of  a  single  set- 
tler at  Astoria,  who,  before  the  taking  possession  of  this  post 
by  Major  Hathaw^ay,  stated  to  you,  as  his  opinion,  that  this 
site  was  the  property  of  the  United  States  Government? 

Ans. — I  think  I  can  state,  without  hesitation,  that  Mr. 
Shiveley  and  Mr.  Welch,  who  had  taken  that  claim  under  the 
Donation  Act,  did  so,  under  the  belief  that  it  was  land  open 
to  occupation,  and  held  by  the  Company  simply  as  tenants  at 
will  of  the  United  States. 

Int.  26. — Did  either  of  these  men  make  any  such  statement 
to  you  personally  ? 

Ans. — It  was  a  matter  often  talked  about  by  the  settlers  in 
tliat  neighborhood,  and  I  am  perfectly  w^ell  satisfied  I  have 
heard  one  or  both  of  them  assert  it. 

Int.  27. — Did  they,  or  either  of  them,  ever  say  to  you  that 
this  fort  had  been  captured  during  the  war  of  1812,  and  at  its 
conclusion  formally  restored  to  the  United  States  Government? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  they  said  this,  in  so  many  words. 
The  fort  can  hardly  bo  said  to  have  been  captured  by  the  Brit- 
ish, because,  before  the  arrival  of  a  British  man-of-war  at 
Astoria,  Mr.  Astor's  partners  had  sold  the  same  to  the  North- 
west Fur  Company  ;  but  its  flag  was  changed,  and  at  the  con- 
clu?>ion  of  the  war  it  was  again  surrendered  to  the  United 
States. 

Int.  28. — Which  of  these  statements  do  you  now  wish  to  be 
considered  the  correct  one — the  one  made  in  answt  i  to  "In- 
terrogatory 6,"  examination-in-chief,  or  the  one  i  i^tde  in  an- 
swer to  the  last  interrogatory? 

Arts. — I  don't  think  that  they  are  particularly  inconsistent. 
Perhaps,  instead  of  saying  captured  by,  I  should  say  betrayed 
to  Groat  Britain. 

Int.  29. — Do  you  know  anything  about  the  matter  pcrson- 


49 


424 


ally,  and  have  you  not,  in  reference  to  this  matter,  svorn  to 
what  you  thought  was  the  real  history  of  the  transaction  ? 

Ans. — In  so  far  as  what  I  have  stated  to  have  been  the  opin- 
ion of  persons  living  at  Astoria  while  I  was  there,  I  have  stated 
it  upon  my  own  kriowledge.  As  to  the  rest,  I  have  stated  what 
I  believe  to  be  matter  of  historical  record. 

Int.  30. — Do  you  feel  confident  to  swear  to  the  truth  of  all 
the  historical  record  which  you  have  incorporated  into  ynur 
testimony  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  think  I  have  incorporated  a  great  deal  nf 
history  iii  my  testimony,  but  I  am  perfectly  well  satisfied  of 
tho  truth  of  whatever  I  may  have  cited. 

Iitt.  31. — Are  you  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  this  fact,  sworn 
to  in  your  examination-in-chief  on  the  25th  day  of  May,  18t!7, 
when,  in  speaking  of  the  post  at  Astoria,  you  say  "it  had 
been  captured  during  the  war  of  1812  ?" 

Ans. — I  th'nk  I  have  already  qualified  that.  Of  course  I 
did  not  intend  to  swear  that  an  event  which  took  place  before 
my  birth  was  absolutely  and  unqualifiedly  true.  As  to  the 
rest,  a  British  vessel,  named,  I  think,  the  Kacoon,  is  histori- 
cally reported  to  have  been  sent  there  to  capture  Astoria,  and 
historically  reported  to  have  arrived  too  late. 

Int.  32. — Are  you  noAV  prepared  to  say  which  of  the  versions 
you  have  given  of  the  transactions  at  Astoria  is  the  correct 
one  ? 

Ans. — In  my  original  statement  that  the  fort  had  been  cap- 
tured, meaning  simply  to  state  that  its  flag  had  been  changed, 
I  supposed  that  I  had  since  explained  that  satisfactorily. 

Int.  33. — Is  this  statement,  which  you  made  in  reference  to 
the  transaction  at  Astoria,  in  answer  to  the  6th  interrogatory- 
in-chief,  as  accurate  and  correct,  as  the  other  statements  made 
throughout  your  examination-in-chief,  as  to  other  matters 
which  you  yourself  did  not  personally  see? 

Ans. — Without  knowing  what  was  the  purport  of  that  inter- 
rogatory, or  the  answer  thereto,  I  have  not  the  means  of  draw- 
ing any  comparison  between  the  correctness  of  that  and  the 
answer  to  any  other  interrogatory  or  interrogatories  which  I 


425 

may  have  made.  I  have  endeavored  in  all  cases  to  make  my 
answers  as  correct  and  explicit  as  possible. 

Int.  34. — In  Cross-Interrogatory  28,  your  attention  was 
particularly  called  to  your  answer  to  Interrogatory  (J,  in  ref- 
erence to  transactions  at  Astoria;  that  language  is  as  follows: 
»'It  had  been  captured  during  the  Avar  of  1812."  The  ques- 
tion id  now  repeated — is  this  statement  as  accurate  as  state- 
ments as  to  other  matters  which  you  yourself  did  not  person- 
ally see? 

Ans. — I  have  already  made  a  qualification  to  that  answer, 
substituting  the  words  "betrayed  to"  for  "capturc<l  by,"  and 
with  this  qualification  or  correction  my  answers  are,  according 
to  my  belief,  correct. 

Int.  35. — T)o  you  not  now  believe  that,  historically  speak- 
ing, this  post  was  sold  by  the  officer  or  officers  in  charge  of  it 
to  another  set  of  traders? 

Ans. — I  do,  with  this  qualification,  that  they  were  or  became 
partners  in  the  second  set,  to  the  injury  of  their  principal. 

Int.  36. — Do  you  not  think  some  of  the  statements  made  by 
you,  in  this  examination  in  reference  to  matters  not  within 
your  own  personal  knowledge,  will  also  require  qualification, 
in  the  same  manner  as  that  in  reference  to  the  capture  of  As- 
toria or  Fort  George? 

Ans. — None  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  37. — You  have  made  the  statement  in  your  oxumination- 
in-chief  that  at  the  conclusion  of  the  war  of  1812,  possession 
of  Astoria  or  Fort  George  was  formally  restored  to  the  United 
States:  to  what  officer  of  the  United  States,  civil,  military,  or 
naval  was  it  formally  restored,  and  by  what  officer  of  the 
Government  of  Great  Britain  was  that  formal  restoration 
made? 

Ans. — That  is  more  than  I  at  this  moment  recollect,  such, 
however,  is  my  impression,  at  any  rate  such  a  belief  undoubt- 
edly influenced  the  parties  occupying  that  claim. 

Int.  38. — Will  you  state  distinctly  that  you  had  even  an 
impression  that  it  is  historically  true  that  Fort  George  was 
ever  formally  restored  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States 


426 


by  that  of  Great  Britain,  through  any  officer  or  agent  of  either 
power? 

Ans. — I  have  a  very  strong  impression,  and,  in  fact,  con- 
viction, that  such  was  the  case. 

Int.  30. — Do  you  believe  this  impression  to  be  as  correct  as 
the  other  historical  statements  made  by  you  in  this  deposition? 

Ans. — I  shall  not  pretend  to  draw  any  comparison  as  to 
correctness  between  historical  facts  to  which  I  have  incident- 
ally referred.  If  I  had  not  supposed  them  to  be  correct,  I 
should  not  have  alluded  to  them. 

lilt.  40. — How  many  settlers  were  at  Astoria  or  within  two 
miles  of  Fort  George  previous  to  Major  Hatheway's  takiixr 
possession  of  Fort  George,  not  including  the  officer^i  and  em- 
ployes of  the  custom-house? 

Ans. — There  were  Shiveley  and  Welch  on  the  claim  on  which 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  post  was  situated,  and  there 
were  several  others,  I  think,  who  occupied  houses  on  that  claim. 
Westward  of  them  was  Col.  John  McClure's  claim,  upon  which 
was  the  village  of  Astoria,  at  that  time  having  perhaps  ten  or 
a  dozen  houses. 

Int.  41. — How  many  stores  were  there  open  in  this  town, 
during  your  first  residence  there? 

Ans. — The  principal  store  was  that  of  Leonard  and  Green, 
originally  near  the  custom-house,  and  afterwards  moved  down 
to  the  village.  I  think  there  were  two  small  stores  at  the  vil- 
lage £*lso.  A  large  one  was  built  there,  I  think,  in  1850, 
which  was  the  one  Leonard  and  Green  afterwards  moved  into. 

Int.  42. — Is  this  town  on  McClure's  claim  which  you  say 
you  visited  once  or  twice  a  week  passing  by  the  Company's 
store? 

Ans. — That  was  about  all  there  was  of  it  at  that  time. 

Int.  43. — Did  these  donation  claimants,  Shiveley  and  Welch, 
claim  to  own  the  Company's  post  at  Astoria  as  part  of  their 
donation  claim? 

Ans. — They  did. 

Int.  44. — Did  they  allow  any  one  to  reside  on  their  claim, 
except  such  persona  as  purchased  lots,  or  obtained  leave  from 
them  ? 


427 

Ans. — I  think  not.    I  remember  that  they  made  great  com- 
plaints about  the  military  coming  on  the  ground. 

Cross-Examination  resumed  June  15th,  1867. 


Int.  45. — Before  Major  Hatheway  took  possession  of  the 
post  at  Astoria,  did  you  see  any  Indians  purchasing  goods  at 
any  of  the  stores  you  have  mentioned  as  being  on  the  McClure 
claim? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  ever  seeing  any  Indians  trading  at 
those  stores,  or  any  other  stores,  during  the  period  mentioned. 

Int.  4G. — Were  you  ever  at  Cape  Disappointment  ? 

Ans. — I  have  been  once. 

Int.  47. — How  did  you  go  there;  who  accompanied  you  ;  in 
what  year,  and  what  time  of  the  year  was  it;  and  how  long 
did  you  remain  ? 

Ans. — I  stopped  there  in  a  steamer,  and  went  ashore  in  a 
boat.  I  think  it  was  in  1855.  Capt.  Dall,  I  think,  commanded 
the  steamer,  but  I  don't  recollect  who  accompanied  me  on  shore. 
I  do  not  remember  the  time  of  the  year.  We  may  have  re- 
mained an  hour  or  two. 

Int.  49. — What  was  the  name  of  the  steamer  ? 

Ans. — That  is  more  than  I  remember ;  probably  the  Co- 
lumbia. 

Int.  50. — Where  were  you  going  to  at  the  time,  or  coming 
from? 

Ans. — I  was  going  round  to  Victoria  and  the  Sound. 

Int.  51. — Was  not  the  Columbia  a  small  steamship  for  a 
sea-going  steamer,  and  of  light  draught  ? 

Ans. — The  Columbia  was,  I  think,  a  vessel  of  600  or  80(» 
tons,  and  of  a  draught  suited  to  the  navigation  of  the  Colum- 
bia and  Willamette  rivers.  She  wai,  however,  a  staunch  sea- 
boat. 

Int.  52. — Did  you  not  on  this  occasion  pass  out  of  the  river 
by  the  north  channel? 

Ans. — ^Ye  did  ;  there  having  been  some  changes  in  the  south 
channel,  and  the  swash  channel  not  being  buoyed  out. 

Int.  53. — During  the  time  you  remained  on  shore  at  Cape 


428 

Disappointment,  did  you  go  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Companv's 
store  at  tliat  point  ? 

Ans. — I  never  heard  that  the  Company  had  a  store  there? 

Int.  54. — Did  you  go  into  any  house  at  the  time  you  wore 
there  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  rcmemher. 

Int.  55. — Was  not  the  name  of  the  person  whom  you  s])cak 
of  as  a  Kudson's  Bay  Company's  man  living  at  the  Cape, 
Thomas  Fisko  Kipling? 

Ans. — He  was  sometimes  called  Piske  and  sometimes  Kip- 
ling. 

I7it.  50. — Do  you  not  know  that  while  you  were  at  iVstoria 
there  was  at  Cape  Disappointment,  in  charge  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company's  estahlishment,  a  Mr.  Henry  Maxwell? 

Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  of  such  a  person,  nor  do  I 
know  of  anv  establishment  further  than  I  have  stated  in  niv 
direct  examination. 

Int.  57. — Have  you  not  stated,  during  the  course  of  your 
examination,  that  you  heard  the  name  of  Kipling  or  Piske 
living  at  the  Cape — did  you  never  hear  of  the  name  of  a  per- 
son living  at  tiie  Cape  of  the  name  of  Maxwell  ? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  remember. 

Int.  58, — Were  not  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Ogdcn,  in  reference 
to  a  tract  of  land  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  which  left 
on  your  mind  an  impression  that  this  tract  was  his  own  private 
land  claim,  made  in  a  jocose  and  laughing  manner? 

Ans. — Tliov  wore.  At  the  same  time  I  inferred  from  his 
remarks  that  tliis  claim  at  Cape  Disappointment  was  one  hold 
by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  or  himself  simply  for  specu- 
lative purposes — in  the  same  way  that  he  spoke  of  a  claim 
that  he  hail  once  taken  on  Tongue  Point.  I  knew  that  the 
officers  of  the  Company  had  taken  Company  claims  in  their 
own  names,  either  for  the  purpose  of  covering  the  Company 
or  holding  the  land  in  their  own  right  when  a  settlement  should 
be  effected,  or  both. 

Int.  51>. — State  anv  one  single  instance  in  which  you  ever 
saw  the  record  of  atiy  paper  connected  with,  or  belonging  to. 
a  claim  for  land,  under  the  laws  of  tlie  United  States,  made 


429 


Iv  any  officer  in  the  employment  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
piiiiv  idone. 

Aihs. — I  was  not  speaking  of  the  records,  which  I  never 
personally  eXiiinined.  Mr.  James  A.  Graham,  of  the  llud- 
soii's  Bay  Company,  chief  clerk  of  Fort  Vancouver,  told  me 
distinctly  that  he  had  taken  Fort  Vcancouver  as  \m  claim  ;  I 
prisiinied,  at  the  time,  to  protect  it. 

Int.  60. — The  purposes,  then,  for  which  you  state  these 
claims  were  taken,  in  your  answer  to  "Interrogatory  58,"  are 
now  to  be  understood  us  an  assumption  of  your  own  ? 

yl/^!^•. — Of  course  they  were  to  a  certain  extent  presump- 
tions, as  I  do  not  remember  that  cither  distinctly  stated  the 
uiutive  he  had  in  view.  Had,  however  the  United  States  pur- 
tliased  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  whilst  these 
individual  claims  were  valid  on  the  record,  there  was  nothins 
to  prevent  oilicers  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  from  hold- 
iiiii  them  for  their  private  benefit,  they  being  citizens  of  the 
Uniicl  States,  or  declaring  their  intention  to  become  such. 

7;/^  01. — Give  the  name  of  anv  other  officer  of  the  Com- 
pany  who  told  you  he  had  a  claim  under  the  laws  of  the  United 
States. 

An^. — I  don't  know  that  any  other  officer  of  the  Company 
over  told  me  that  he  had  such  a  claim. 

Int.  02. — When  did  Mr.  Graham  make  this  statement  to 
you  as  to  his  claim  ;  where  did  he  make  it;  who  was  present, 
if  atiy  one,  at  the  time;  and  state  as  near  as  you  can  the  exact 
laiiu'uaiie  he  made  use  of? 

Alls. — The  statement  was  made  to  me  by  Mr.  Graham,  if  I 
recollect  right,  in  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  post  at  Van- 
couver. I  cannot  state  positively  in  what  year.  It  was,  how- 
ever, at  a  time  when  some  excitement  existed  about  encroach- 
ments on  this  Hudson's  Bay  Company  claim,  and  I  think 
must  have  been  in  1855  or  '6.  I  have  no  recollection  if  any 
one  was  present,  or  who. 

Jnt.  63. — Was  Mr.  Ogden'&  statement  made  to  you  before 
or  after  this  ? 

Alls. — If  I  am  correct  in  the  date  of  Mr.  Graham's  atate- 
ment,  Mr.  Ogden  was  already  dead. 


i 


m' 


430 

Int.  G4. — When  was  this  statement  of  Mr.  Ogdeii's  mailo 
to  you  ? 

Ans. — I  think  in  1853,  while  I  was  employed  in  the  Pucific 
Railroad  Survey. 

Int.  Gi). — NVus  it  in  his  own  house? 

Ans. — I  presume  it  was.  I  was  a  great  deal  at  his  house 
while  at  Vancouver,  and  he  was  seldom  out. 

Int.  GG. — Was  it  before  or  after  dinner? 

Ans. — I  presume  before  dinner. 

Int.  61. — Was  this  statement  made  to  you  deliberately  ia 
reply  to  any  direct  question,  or  at  any  time  when  you  wore 
seeking  information  to  embody  in  your  report,  or  for  anv 
other  purpose  of  which  you  informed  him,  or  was  it  made  in 
general  and  careless  conversation  ? 

Ans. — I  frequently  discussed  with  Governor  Ogden  the 
subject  of  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against 
the  United  States,  both  in  regard  to  land  and  other  matters, 
and  I  presume  it  was  in  one  of  these  conversations  that  he 
made  the  remark. 

Int.  68, — What  was  the  language  that  Mr.  Ogden  made  use 
of,  from  which  you  inferred  that  the  tract  of  land  at  Cape 
Disappointment  was  held  for  speculative  purposes? 

Ans. — The  remark  to  the  effect  that  that  was  his  claim.  1 
could  conceive,  however,  of  no  other  object  which  any  one 
would  have  in  holding  it. 

Int.  69. — Are  we  now  to  understand,  then,  that  inference 
made  by  you  from  this  statement  of  his  was  the  conception  of 
your  own  mind? 

Ans. — I  believe  that  an  inference  is  usually  a  conception  of 
a  man's  own  mind  arising  from  the  words  or  acts  of  another. 

I7it.  70. — How  far  is  Cape  Disappointment  from  the  place 
you  have  called  Chinook  beach  by  the  usual  method  of  travel? 

uins. — I  think  six  or  eight  miles. 

Int.  71. — Have  you  not  been  compelled  to  look  upon  a  chart 
or  map  for  the  purpose  of  informing  your  mind  since  the  last 
question  was  isked  you? 

Ans. — Yes ;  and  I  find  the  distance  is  greater,  say  about 
15  miles. 


431 

Int.  72. — How  far  is  it  from  Chinook  boacli  to  Astoria  ? 

A)\s. — I  think  eight  or  ten  miles  across  the  river. 

Int.  73. — Is  not  this  navigation  around  the  mouth  of  the 
Columbia  river  often  dangerous  for  canoes  and  boats  ? 

A)i8. — Very. 

Int.  74. — Did  you  not,  about  August,  1850,  about  the  time 
that  you  refused  to  allow  the  schooner  Prince  of  Wales  to  take 
freight  for  Judge  Strong  up  the  river,  meet  with  Mr.  Maxwell, 
tiie  agent  of  the  Company  at  Cape  Disappointment,  when  he 
came  to  Astoria? 

An8. — I  have  no  recollection,  as  I  have  already  stated,  of 
any  such  person. 

Int.  75. — He  is  referred  to  in  a  letter  of  Judge  Strong's  of 
16th  of  August,  1850,  dated  Astoria,  in  this  language:  "When 
I  saw  your  agent  hero  this  evening;  he  is  now  on  the  north 
side  of  the  river,  but  is  expected  here."  Did  you  see  the 
agent  thus  referred  to  about  that  time? 

Arts. — I  have  no  recollection  of  seeing  him  or  any  other 
agent  about  that  time;  nor  have  I  any  recollection  of  ever 
having  seen  an  agent  by  the  name  of  Maxwell.  The  only 
knowledge  I  have  of  any  such  person,  beyond  the  knowledge 
of  the  counsel,  as  connected  with  the  affair  of  the  Prince  of 
Wales,  is  the  following  extract  from  Governor  Ogden's  letter 
of  August  25,  1850,  to  Sir  George  Simpson,  in  which  he  says: 
"The  enclosed  documents  I  now  forward  you  will  explain 
themselves.  Owing  to  the  stupidity  of  Maxwell  he  has  not 
forwarded  to  me  the  originals;"  but  who  this  stupid  Maxwell 
was  I  do  not  know. 

Int.  70. — Did  you  not  receive,  before  Major  Hatheway  took 
possession  of  the  Company's  post,  orders  for  money  from  Mr. 
Ogden,  drawn  on  Edward  Spencer,  officer  in  charge  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company's  establishment  at  Astoria,  and  were 
not  those  orders  collected? 

Ans. — I  find  by  my  letter  to  Mr.  Ogden  of  March  1,  1850, 
that  I  pointed  out  an  error  in  the  calculation  of  duties  on  the 
cargo  of  the  bark  Victory,  Captain  Ryan,  and  that  Governor 
Ogden,  in  consequence,  forwarded  to  me  an  order  on  Edward 
Spencer  for  the  difference,  amounting  $18.02^.  This  last  fact 
28  H 


432 


appears  by  his  letter  to  me  of  25th  of  March,  1850.  Both 
letters  arc  printed  in  the  evidence  for  the  claimants,  and  are, 
I  doubt  not,  correct  copies,  and  exhibit  the  facts.  As  to  the  col- 
lection of  the  money,  I  presume  of  course  it  was  duly  paid.  The 
Company  was  very  exact  in  the  transaction  of  their  business, 
still  as  to  a  transaction  which  took  place  17  years  ago,  involv- 
ing the  payment  of  ^18.02J,  I  don't  think  that  I  should  have 
remembered  it  had  it  not  been  for  this  printed  correspondence. 

Int.  11. — Was  Edward  Spencer  at  that  time  at  the  Com- 
pany's establishment  at  Astoria? 

Ans. — I  presume  he  was;  but  I  should  not  have  remembered 
except  for  this  letter  of  Mr.  Ogden's,  or  the  original,  now  in 
my  possession. 

Int.  78. — Do  you  now  remember,  from  your  own  recollec- 
tion, after  having  seen  the  letter,  that  Edward  Spencer  was 
there? 

Ans. — I  remember  Spencer  perfectly  well  as  a  man  that  I 
met  frequently,  but  whether  at  that  time  I  saw  him  or  not,  I 
cannot  recollect,  having  had  no  occasion  to  fix  his 'presence  in 
my  memory. 

Int.  79. — Did  you  receive  any  other  orders  on  Mr.  Spencer 
from  Mr.  Ogden? 

Ans. — Possibly  yes,  and  possibly  not.  The  details  of 
ordinary  business  transactions  occurring  so  long  ago,  in  which 
I  am  interested  only  as  a  subordinate,  and  which  have  long 
since  been  settled,  are  not  likely  to  be  preserved  fresh  in  the 
memory. 

Int.  80. — Was  not  the  steamer  by  which  you  went  to  Puget's 
Sound  in  1855,  a  steamer  called  the  California,  with  troops  on 
board  for  Fort  Steilacoom  and  the  Sound? 

Ans. — No. 

Int.  81. — How  many  vessels  entered  at  the  port  of  Astoria 
during  the  time  you  were  there  as  deputy  collector? 

Ans. — That  I  cannot  answer  without  referring  to  the  re- 
turns. The  number,  however,  was  considerable  considering 
the  state  of  the  country  and  its  very  limited  population.  They 
were  mostly  sailing  vessels  of  different  descriptions,  which 
brought  small  assorted  cargoes  up  from  San  FranciK^co,  and 


483 


took  down  on  their  return  voyage  cargoes  of  lumber,  piles,  and 
eountry  produce.  There  were  one  or  two  vessels  from  the  Sand- 
wich Islands,  one  belonging  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 
There  were  also  one  or  two  vessels  from  Victoria,  Vancouver's 
Island.  There  may  have  been  one  vessel  direct  from  England, 
but  concerning  these  circumstances  I  cannot  pretend  to  answer 
positively,  as  I  have  not  looked  over  the  papers  from  that  day 
to  this. 

Int.  82. — Were  there  more  than  four  vessels  that  made 
entry  at  the  custom-house  during  the  time  you  were  acting 
as  deputy  collector  ? 

Ant. — Of  vessels  bringing  dutiable  goods  I  do  not  think 
there  were  more  than  five  or  six  between  the  1st  of  January, 
1850,  and  the  time  I  left,  in  the  spring  of  1851.  I  have  omitted 
to  state  in  speaking  of  the  vessels  that  arrived  at  the  port 
that  during  the  summer  of  1850  the  Pacific  Mail  Company 
commenced  to  despatch  vessels  from  San  Francisco  to  Astoria, 
and  latterly  to  Portland. 

Int.  83. — Were  the  duties  on  the  goods  carried  in  these  five 
or  six  vessels  paid  in  money? 

Ans. — They  were,  except  that  time  was  given  in  some  cases 
to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  to  collect  the  necessary  amount 
in  such  coin  as  the  law  required,  gold  dust  not  being  receiv- 
able, and  the  ordinary  currency  of  the  country,  including 
<!oins  of  almost  every  kind  and  every  nation. 

Int.  84. — Were  not  these  duties,  or  portions  of  them,  some- 
times paid  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  orders  or  drafts? 

Ans. — I  do  not  recollect  any  other  instance  than  the  case 
of  the  small  draft  made  by  Mr.  Ogdon  upon  Spencer.  Every 
indulgence  and  facility  was,  however,  given  to  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  in  the  matter  of  paying  their  duties  to  a  much 
greater  degree  than  to  American  importers. 

Int.  85. — Were  not  goods  of  the  Company  landed  and  stored 
at  Astoria? 

Ans. — None  that  I  remember.  There  could  not  have  been 
in  any  large  quantity,  or  of  any  great  value,  for  they  had  no 
place  to  keep  them  in,  and  no  use  for  them  there. 

Int,  86. — Give  the  names  of  any  single  sailing  vessels  that 


484 


I 


you  saw  or  know  passing  out  of  the  Columbia  river  bv  the 
south  cliannch 

Ans. — The  first  vessel  which  passed  out  of  the  south  chan- 
nel after  my  arrival  at  Astoria  was  the  bark  Louisiana,  hiu;- 
bor  and  produce  loaded,  for  San  Francisco.  After  that  time 
no  vessel  went  out  or  came  in  while  I  was  there  with  a  pilot 
on  board  by  any  other  channel,  unless  it  might  have  been  one 
of  the  heavier  draught  California  steamers. 

Int.  87. — Was  this  south  channel  closed  in  185-3  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  it  was;  but  I  think  that  either  in 
1855,  or  within  a  couple  of  years  afterwards,  the  channel  had 
changed  considerably,  and  in  particular  stages  of  water  the 
north  channel,  so  long  almost  abandoned,  was  again  used. 

Int.  88. — How  near  to  Pillar  Rock  was  the  fishing  station 
you  saw  used  by  Mr.  Ilensill? 

Ans. — Pillar  Rock  is  an  isolated  column  of  basalt  in  the 
Columbia  river,  and  the  station  on  the  main  land,  the  north 
bank  of  the  Columbia  river,  takes  its  name  from  it.  It  is,  I 
suppose,  a  mile  or  two  from  the  rock.  I  do  not  recollect  ex- 
actly. 

Int.  80. — Did  this  man,  Ilensill,  have  a  donation  claim  as 
the  fishing  station  ? 

Ana. — No ;  he  went  there  just  as  a  Hudson's  Bay  man 
might  have  done,  camped  there,  and  traded  cotton  shirts  and 
pocket  handkerchiefs,  and  other  articles,  with  the  Indians  for 
salmon. 


Cross- Examination  Bcsumcd,  June  17,  18G7. 


Int.  90. — Was  not  Ilensill  an  employe  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company? 

Ans. — He  kept  a  small  store  at  Astoria,  and  kept  a  small 
store  on  his  own  account. 

Int.  91. — How  many  times  were  you  at  Pillar  Rock  fishing 
during  your  first  resilience  at  Astoria  ? 

Ans. — I  think,  besides  the  visit  there  of  which  I  have 
spoken,  I  camped  there  once  or  twice  on  my  way  up  and  down 
the  river. 


435 


)een  one 


Int.  02. — How  lon^T  did  you  remain  there  at  the  time  of 
this  visit  you  speak  of? 

Ana. — I  don't  remember;  I  was  there  h)ng  enough  to  watch 
the  scincing,  cleaning,  a)ul  salting  the  fish. 

Int.  93. — Did  you  remain  on  the  beach  or  visit  the  trading 
jilace  of  Ilensill  wliile  you  were  there  ? 

Am. — I  think  he  had  a  tent  tlicre,  and  Iiad  some  goods  for 
trade.  I  recollect  his  showing  me  how  he  cured  the  fish. 
Whether  I  went  to  his  tent  I  don't  remember. 

Int.  94. — Did  you  see  Hcnsill  pay  for  any  fish  purchased 
from  the  Indians  ? 

An%. — At  this  length  of  time  I  cannot  say,  though  I  have  a 
vogue  recollection  of  his  telling  me  something  about  prices. 

Int.  0.5. — What  was  the  name  of  the  officer  in  charge  of  the 
Company's  post  at  Cowlitz  ? 

Ans. — Edward  Spencer  was  there  at  one  time — the  same 
who  was  previously  at  Astoria, 

Int.  OG. — Was  Edward  Spencer  an  Englishman,  a  Scotch- 
man, or  of  what  nation  was  he  ? 

fins. — I  think  ho  was  a  quarter-breed,  but  of  what  nation- 
ality I  r^o  not  know. 

Int.  97. — Who  else  was  there  with  him  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember ;  I  think  there  was  one  or  two 
Canadians. 

Int.  98. — When  was  Edward  Spencer  at  Astoria  ? 

Ans. — By  a  letter  from  Gov.  Ogden  to  me,  he  appears  to 
to  have  been  there  in  1850 ;  otherwise,  I  don't  think  that  I 
should  have  remembered  the  fact. 

Int.  99. — Have  you  any  recollection  what  Edward  Spencer 
did  at  Astoria  ? 

Ans. — Gov.  Ogden  wrote  of  him  as  the  Company's  agent, 
and  sent  me  a  draft  for  a  small  sum  of  raon^y  on  him.  That 
is  all  that  I  remember  of  Mr.  Spencer. 

Int.  100, — When  were  you  at  Walla-Walla ;  how  long  did 
you  remain  there  at  your  first,  and,  if  you  made  any  other,  at 
your  subsequent  visits? 

Ans. — I  never  was  there  but  twice — once  in  the  fall  of  1853 
and  once  in  the  fall  of  1860.     I  cannot  state  exactly  how 


vm 

ilffe  ;:' ' 


4B6 

long  I  was  there  on  eitbcr  occasion.  On  the  first  occasion  I 
was  there  long  enough  to  examine  the  fort,  note  the  dimen- 
sions of  the  buildings,  and  make  a  ground  plan  of  it.  On  the 
second  occasion  I  merely  went  inside  to  see  :n  what  condition 
it  wasr 

Int.  101. — How  did  you  arrive  ut  Walla- Walla  when  you 
first  visited  it,  by  water  or  by  Ipwd? 

Ans. — By  land. 

Int.  102. — How  many  men  were  in  the  party  that  arrived 
there  with  you  ;  and  how  many  animals  ? 

Ana. — There  were  Capt.  McClellan  and  his  party,  soue  forty 
or  fifty  men,  with  thoir  i-iding  animals,  and  their  pack  tram. 

Int.  103. — How  near  to  Fort  Walla-Walla  did  this  party  go 
into  camp,  and  how  long  did  they  remain  there? 

Ans. — We  camped  on  the  Columbia,  some  way  below  there: 
how  far  I  cannot  now  remember;  remained  there  overnight. 

Int.  104. — Where  did  your  party  go,  after  breaking  camp- 
next  morning? 

Ans. — Pushed  down  the  road  to  the  Dalles. 

Int.  105. — Where  did  you  camp  the  day  before,  and  by  what 
route  did  you  come  to  the  camp  you  mentioned  ? 

Ans. — We  camped  on  the  Walla-Walla  river,  above  the  post. 

I)it.  10&. — How  far  above  the  post  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  the  distance  above. 

Int.  lOT. — In  your  travel  between  these  two  camps,  did  your 
train  pass  by  old  Walla- Walla  ? 

ns. — Yes ;  I  have  alrai  ly     said  that  we  did. 

Int.  108. — Did  you  leave  the  train,  and  stop  at  the  post  at 
that  time? 

Ans. — I  think  there  were  sevei  al  of  us  stopped  there,  while 
the  train  went  on. 

Int.  109. — At  what  time  in  the  day  d''l  the  train  pass  the 
fort  ? 

Ans. — That  I  can't  say ;  it  was  probably  not  late,  as  we 
made  a  short  march  that  day.' 

Int.  110. — What  time  of  that  day  did  you  arrive  at  the  camp 
before  the  fort  ? 

Ans. — That  is  utterly  impossible  for  me  to  say. 


437 


Int.  111. — Do  you  now  recollect  where  you  camped  t'le  night 
before  you  passed  the  fort,  or  where  you  camped  the  night 
afterwards,  from  your  own  memory  at  all,  and  are  not  those 
statements  you  have  made  in  reference  to  it  derived  from  a 
note-book  which  you  have  consulted  ? 

Ans. — So  far  certainly  as  regards  the  camping  grounds,  the 
statements  are  derived  from  my  note-book,  and  not  from 
memory. 

Int.  112. — Did  you  see  the  farm  you  have  mentioned  in  your 
answer  to  "Interrogatory  13?" 

Am. — I  do  not  remember  whether  we  passed  it  or  not ;  I 
think  that  possibly  my  information  in  that  respect  was  derived 
from  Mr.  Pambrun,  the  Company's  agent  at  Walla-Walla. 
This  1  could  not  now  pretend  to  state  positively. 

Int.  113. — Did  you  see  the  dam  you  mentioned,  for  irrigating 
purposes,  which  you  say  was  broken  down? 

Ans. — I  think  I  have  some  vague  recollection  both  of  the 
farm  and  the  dam ;  but  on  this  point  I  am  less  positive  than 
the  others. 

Int.  114. — Did  you  see  twenty  acres  of  cultivated  lands  in 
different  spots  about  this  farm,  or  any  place  near  Fort  Walla- 
Walla? 

Am. — TiiO  twenty  acres  spoken  of  were  at  the  above-men- 
tioned farm.  The  exact  amount  of  land  under  cultivation 
there,  I  presume  I  learnt  from  the  Company's  people. 

Int.  115. — Do  you  make  this  statement  in  reference  to  the 
cultivated  land  from  your  recollection  of  having  seen  it,  or 
from  the  examination  just  made  of  your  note-book? 

Am. — I  remember  perfectly  well  seeing  cultivated  land  on 
that  river;  the  amount  I  did  not  measure  of  course,  but  pro- 
bably derived  it  from  the  information  of  persons  on  the  ground. 
That  amount,  however,  I  derived  from  my  note-book,  in  which 
I  made  entries  from  day  to  day  of  my  own  uuservation  and 
information  gathered  from  others. 

Int.  116. — How  many  horses  belonging  to  the  Company  did 
you  see  around  this  post? 

An9. — I  don't  suppose  I  saw  any,  unless  it  r  ight  have  been 
a  riding  animal  or  two. 


438 


Int.  117. — How  many  persons  in  the  employ  of  the  Com- 
pany, officers  and  others,  did  you  see  at  the  post  at  this  visit? 

Ans. — I  recollect  seeing  Mr.  Pambrun,  whom  I  had  known 
before.  He  is  the  only  one  I  could  individually  recall.  I 
have  no  recollection  of  the  number  I  may  have  seen,  as  the 
men  were  not  paraded  for  inspection. 

Int.  118. — How  long  were  you  at  Walla- Walla  at  the  time 
of  your  second  visit  in  18G0? 

Ans. — But  a  short  time,  while  waiting  for  the  steamboat, 
long  enough,  however,  for  me  to  go  into  the  fort  and  examine 
its  condition. 

Int.  119. — Was  not  a  portion  of  the  old  fort  at  this  time 
repaired  and  in  occupation  of  some  one? 

Ans. — I  saw  no  evidence  of  repair.  I  recollect  that  there- 
was  a  man  there  who  appeared  to  be  in  charge. 

Int.  120. — What  time  of  the  year  were  you  there  at  your 
first  visit  in  1853  ? 

Ans. — Early  part  of  November. 

Int.  121. — Had  the  fall  rains  set  in  at  that  time? 

Ans. — They  had  not.  The  whole  country  was  in  a  whirl- 
wind of  blowing  sand. 

Int.  122. — Did  you  notice  at  the  time  of  your  first  visit  a 
horse  park  outside  of  the  walls  of  the  fort  of  some  fifty  feet 
square? 

Ans. — I  recollect  that  there  were  some  outside  arrangements, 
and  very  probably  a  corral  of  that  size. 

Int.  123 — Is  your  description  of  Fort  Colvile  a  description 
of  it  at  the  time  you  visited  there  with  the  McClellan  expedi- 
tion in  1853,  or  a  description  of  it  at  the  time  you  visited  it 
with  the  Boundary  Survey? 

Ans. — I  referred  to  Fort  Colvile  in  1853  chiefly. 

Int.  124. — What  time  of  the  year  were  you  there  this  first 
visit? 

Ans. — I  think  it  was  in  October. 

Int.  125. — What  stage  of  water  was  there  in  the  Columbia 
river  at  that  time? 

Ans. — A  low  stage. 


439 

Int.  126. — At  the  time  of  your  second  visit  was  there  any 
freshet  in  the  river. 

Ans. — There  was  not.  I  was  there  in  the  fall  of  1850  and 
the  spring  and  fall  of  1860;  the  freshets  of  the  river  occur  in 
summer. 

Int.  126^-. — At  which  of  your  visits  was  it  that  everything 
denoted  the  intended  evacuation  of  the  country  by  the  Com- 
pany? 

Ans. — At  the  first.  At  the  time  of  my  second  visit  there 
was  a  ^  mporary  activity  in  business,  caused  by  the  arrival  of 
the  Commission,  which,  to  a  certain  extent,  aftocted  the  Com- 
pany's post.  In  the  interim,  however,  they  had  built  a  new 
post  just  south  of  the  boundary  line  at  a  cost  of  .^20,000,  as  I 
was  told  by  Mr.  McDonald.  This  post  is  called  Fort  Shep- 
herd; it  is  on  the  Columbia  river,  a  little  above  the  junction  of 
Clarke's  fork.  It  is  on  quite  a  large  scale,  and  was  constructed 
with  a  view  to  the  abandonment  of  Fort  Colvile,  but  had  not 
been  opened  for  general  trade. 

Int.  127. — How  long  were  you  at  Colvile  in  18;").^? 

Ans. — We  were  encamped  in  the  immediate  neighborhood, 
c  close  to  it,  I  think,  four  days. 

Int.  128. — State  where  you  were  camped,  and  at  what  dis- 
tance from  Fort  Colvile? 

Ans. — The  camp  was  on  the  Columbia,  about  a  quarter  of  a 
mile,  I  should  think,  from  the  post. 

Int.  129. — How  far,  in  any  direction,  did  you  ride  or  walk 
from  the  camp  during  the  four  days  you  remained  there? 

Ans. — On  that  occasion  I  think  I  went  no  further  than  the 
falls,  and  elsewhere  within  a  radius  of  one  or  two  miles  until 
we  left. 

Int.  130. — Did  you  visit  the  mill  at  this  time? 

Ans. — I  think  not;  I  don't  think  I  ever  was  at  the  mill. 

Int.  131. — What  is  this  description  of  Fort  Colvile  in  1853, 
given  by  you,  taken  from? 

Ans. — The  description  of  Fort  Colvile  in  1853  was  given 
from  observation  on  the  spot,  assisted  by  information  from 
Mr.  McDonald,  the  Company's  officer  in  charge. 

Int.  132. — Was  not  the  greater  portion  of  this  description 


^w« 


m^: ! 


m0f 


mm. 


440 

of  Colvile,  in  answer  to  "Interrogatory  14,"  taken  almost 
entirely  from  your  report  on  the  Indians  of  Washington  Ter- 
ritory, made  to  the  then  Captain  McClellan ;  and  is  it  not,  so 
far  as  taken  from  that  report,  verbatim? 

Ans. — So  far  as  the  mode  of  expression  is  concerned  most 
of  my  description  is  in  the  language  of  that  report,  and  was 
taken  from  it.  The  report  is,  however,  in  consonance  with 
my  own  recollection  of  the  place,  and  its  wording  was  followed 
for  greater  precision  and  correctness. 

Int.  133. — Did  you  not  have  this  report  open  before  you, 
and,  with  that  open,  did  you  not  dictate  the  answer  to  be  writ- 
ten out? 

Ans. — Substantially  I  did. 

Int.  134. — Which  is  correct,  the  language  of  the  report,  or 
the  language  of  your  answer  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  there  was  any  discrepancy  between 
them. 

Int.  135. — Is  it  true  that  the  stockade  had  been  removed 
except  on  the  north  ? 

Ans. — I  think  it  has  been  removed  except  on  the  north  and 
a  small  portion  on  the  east. 

Int.  136. — Do  you  know  which  of  these  two  statements  is 
correct,  first,  that  the  stockade  had  been  removed  except  on 
the  north ;  and,  second,  that  it  had  been  removed  except  on 
the  north  and  east,  in  your  last  answer  ? 

Ans. — I  shall  say  to  that  substantially  the  first  answer  was 
correct,  for  I  think  that  but  a  portion  of  the  stockade,  and  a 
small  portion  at  that,  was  left  standing  on  the  east  side. 

Int.  138. — Is  this  statement  a  correct  one  ? 

Ans. — I  think  it  is  entirely. 

lilt.  139. — Which  of  the  two  statements  is  correct,  "  The 
buildings  were  enclosed  in  1853  with  pickets  only  on  two 
sides;"  or  this  statement,  speaking  of  the  stockade:  "This 
had  been  lemoved,  except  on  the  north,  where  it  encloses  a 
narrow  yard  containing  ofiices  ?  "     This  last  from  your  report. 

A71S. — I  mean  that  the  pickets  had  been  entirely  removed 
from  two  sides,  and,  for  the  most  part,  on  the  third.  There 
was  a  narrow  yard  between  the  buildings  and  the  remainder 


441 


of  the  stockade.  The  pickets  or  stockade  had  been  entirely 
removed  except  on  two  sides,  and,  as  I  recollect,  almost  en- 
tirely on  a  third  side. 

Jnt.  140. — How  do  you  know  they  had  been  removed  ? 

Ans. — Because  they  were  not  there.  The  post  was  said  to 
have  been  once  completely  enclosed.  I  think  also  the  marks 
of  the  original  lines  were  upon  the  ground  at  the  time  I  mea- 
sured it. 

Int.  141. — Was  this  statement,  speaking  of  the  stockade, 
true  at  the  time  you  embodied  it  in  your  report:  "  This  had 
been  removed  except  on  the  north?" 

Ans. — I  presume  it  was  substantially  as  stated,  if  not  liter- 
ally.    It,  at  any  rate,  was  so  intended  to  be. 

Int.  142. — What  later  knowledge  have  you  which  enables 
you  to  modify  that  statement,  in  this  language,  speaking  of  the 
stockade :  "  The  remainder  of  the  stockade  having  rotted  down 
or  been  removed  ?" 

Ans. — I  have  no  later  knowledge  on  the  subject  of  the  stock- 
ade than  1853,  and  now,  on  referring  to  my  original  notes,  I 
find  the  statement  that  the  buildings  were  enclosed  with  pickets 
only  on  two  sides.  My  recollection  is,  however,  very  strong 
that  they  were  gone  on  most  of  the  third  side  also,  and,  in 
drawing  up  that  report,  I  presume  that,  I  disregarded  that 
remaining  fragment  on  the  east. 

Int.  14.3. — What  caused  you  then  to  modify  the  statement 
that  the  stockade  had  been  removed,  by  the  statement  that 
they  either  rotted  down  or  had  been  removed  ? 

Ans. — I  presume  the  principal  reason  for  removing  it  would 
have  been  its  being  rotten. 

Int.  144. — Did  you  see  a  boat  expedition  from  Vancouver 
to  Colvile,  or  notice  the  express  across  the  mountains  from 
Colvile  to  York  factory  ? 

Ans. — No;  I  did  not  soo  the  boat  expedition;  but  Avhcn 
arrived  at  Atahnam,  in  the  Yakama  country,  the  Indians 
reported  certain  statements  as  having  been  made  by  the  offi- 
cer in  charge  of  that  boat  party  tending  to  excite  the  hos- 
tility of  the  Indians,  and  Captain  McClellan  reported  the 
same  to  Governor  Ogden,  requesting  an  explanation.     On  our 


442 


^ 


m 


I 
plft 


arrival  at  Fort  Colvilo  wc  learned  from  Mr.  McDonald  tliat 
he  had  himself  been  in  charge  of  that  party,  and  that  Gov- 
ernor  Ogden  had  accordingly  referred  the  matter  to  him.  He 
informed  us  that  the  story  was  one  gotten  up  by  the  Indians 
themselves  to  embarrass  our  progress,  and  that  there  was  no 
truth  in  it.  It  was  in  that  way  that  I  knew  of  the  boat  expe- 
dition. As  to  the  express  across  the  Rocky  Mountains,  both 
Mr.  McDonald  and  Governor  Ogden  mentioned  the  matter  to 
me. 

Int.  145. — Have  you  stated  the  facts  about  the  boat  expe- 
dition and  the  express  from  your  note-book  or  from  your 
memory? 

Ans. — I  speak  now  from  memory,  although  I  think  both 
subjects  arc  referred  to  in  my  note-book. 

J)it.  14G. — Does  your  note-book  contain  any  statement  that 
that  was  the  last  boat  expedition  from  Vancouver  to  Colvile? 

Ans. — I  presume  not. 

Int.  147. — Have  you  any  personal  knowledge  which  enables 
you  to  say  that  this  was  the  last  boat  expedition  bringing 
goods  in  any  considerable  quantity,  and  that  the  last  express 
from  Colvile  across  the  mountains  to  York  factory  took  place 
that  year? 

Ans. — The  statement  is,  if  I  recollect  right,  qualified  in  my 
direct  examination,  but  I  know  that  Mr.  McDonald  one  year 
brought  his  furs  to  Nisqually  by  horses,  and  I  believe  took 
his  goods  back  on  his  return.  The  Company  about  tiiis  time 
opened  the  road  from  Fort  Hope  across  the  mountains,  by 
which  they  afterwards  carried  their  goods  to  Colvile  and  the 
northern  posts.  As  regards  the  express  across  the  Rocky 
Mountains  to  York  factory  ceasing  to  run,  I  got  that  informa- 
tion from  officers  of  the  Company. 

Int.  148. — How  is  this  statement  qualified  in  your  examina- 
tion-in-chief? 

Ans. — On  looking  at  the  examination  I  do  not  see  any  fur- 
ther qualification  than  that  as  regards  the  quantity  of  goods 
eent  in  that  way.  Boats  may,  however,  have  gone  up  the  river 
for  a  year  or  two  later,  but  I  do  not  think  that  the  annual 
supply  was  carried  by  them. 


443 


ir  cxamma- 


Int.  149. — Do  you  personally  know  anything  about  the  an- 
nual supply  of  Colvile  before  1850  and  18G0,  independently  of 
hearsay  ? 

Am. — I  know  that  I  frequently  conversed  with  the  Com- 
pany's officers  in  regard  to  the  various  routes  of  communica- 
tion, and  their  efforts  to  open  the  route  by  way  of  Fraser 
river  into  the  interior,  and  it  is  from  them  that  my  informa- 
tion on  the  subject,  and  the  impressions  that  I  formed,  are  in 
great  moasure  derived. 

Int.  150. — Name  the  officer  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
who  told  you  that  this  was  the  last  boat  expedition  in  1853 
bringing  goods  in  considerable  quantity  to  Fort  Colvile. 

Ann. — There  is  no  officer  whom  I  could  name  as  having  stated 
that  fact  in  so  many  words. 

Int.  151. — Have  you  not  inferred  from  seeing  McDonald 
)vitli  furs  at  Nisqually,  and  hearing  there  was  a  road  from  Fort 
Hope  across  the  mountains? 

Ans. — Not  alone  from  that,  but,  among  other  things,  know- 
ing the  wish  of  the  Company  to  transfer  the  route  from  the 
Columbia  to  Fraser  river,  the  efforts  thov  had  made  to  find  a 
euitable  pass  within  British  territory,  and  the  gradual  transfer 
of  the  Indian  trade  to  Victoria. 

Int.  152. — Can  you  say  that  you  know  now,  or  ever  did 
know,  from  any  person  authorized  to  express  them,  the  wish 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  to  transfer  their  route  from  the 
Columbia  to  Fraser  river?    Is  not  that  an  inference  of  your 


own 


Ans. — I  never  knew  they  wished  to  disguise  it.  Mr.  A.  C. 
Anderson,  in  the  winter  of  1853-4,  gave  me  a  map  showing  a 
number  of  routes  which  he  had  examined  by  orders  of  the 
Company  with  a  view  of  finding  a  practicable  pass  across  the 
Cascades  to  the  north  of  the  line.  These  routes  were  exam- 
ined at  very  considerable  expense  and  very  great  labor,  and 
the  examination  had  been  continued  through  a  series  of  years. 
Without  being  able  to  cite  the  name  of  any  single  officer  of 
the  Company  as  making  the  statement,  I  am  very  clear  that 
more  than  one  of  them,  in  general  conversation  upon  the  sub- 
ject, admitted  it  freely. 


444 

Int.  153.— Bo  you  personally  know  of  the  examination  or 
working  of  any  road  across  the  Cascade  Mountains  north  of 
the  49th  parallel  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  before  the 
year  1858  ? 

Ana. — When  I  was  at  Port  Langley  in  1858,  Mr.  Yale,  the 
officer  in  charge  there,  told  me  he  had  attempted  to  cut  out  a 
route  by  the  way  of  the  Chiloweyuk,  a  branch  of  Fraser  river, 
the  route  afterwards  opened  by  the  Boundary  Survey.  He  told 
me  he  had  also  found  a  route  from  Fort  Yale  across,  but  that 
it  had  been  abandoned  in  favor  of  the  route  from  Fort  Hope. 
I  have  had  no  ocular  observation  of  Hudson's  Bay  parties  on 
any  of  these  routes,  but  I  saw  on  the  Chiloweyuk  marks  of 
cutting  which  I  supposed  to  have  been  done  by  Mr.  Yale's 
party. 

Int.  154. — When  did  you  examine  the  soil  of  Mill  creek? 

Ans. — I  examined  it  more  particularly  in  1853,  as  my  orders 
then  were  to  collect  specimens  of  soil  in  different  parts  of  the 
country  for  analysis.  While  I  was  there,  however,  on  my 
second  visit,  I  saw  a  good  deal  of  ploughing  done. 

Int.  155. — How  far  is  Mill  creek  from  your  camp  in  1853 
at  Colvile? 

Ans — The  mouth  of  the  creek  is  two  or  three  miles  below 
Colvile;  but  our  return  route  from  there  led  us  up  the  valley 
of  the  creek  to  its  source. 

Int.  156. — Were  you  ever  on  Mill  creek  during  the  freshet? 

Ans. — I  have  seen  a  considerable  part  of  the  valley  of  Mill 
creek  covered  with  water  by  the  melting  of  the  snow. 


Cross-Examination  resumed  June  18,  1867. 


Int.  157. — What  portion  of  Mill  creek  did  you  examine,  and 
how  far  from  its  mouth  did  you  begin  its  examination? 

Ans. — I  should  think  we  struck  Mill  creek  about  five  miles 
from  its  mouth,  and  followed  up  the  valley. 

Int.  158. — Did  that  examination  consist  of  anything  more 
than  riding  along  the  creek,  and  looking  at  the  country  as 
you  rode?  '  - 

Ans. — I  observed  the  country  carefully  as  I  rode,  and,  as 


445 

was  my  practice,  dismounted,  and  collected  what  I  considered 
well  characterized  the  specimens  of  the  soil.  I  Avish  to  state 
here  in  reference  to  the  opinions  I  have  expressed  as  to  the 
agricultural  value  of  the  lands  in  the  Territory,  they  were  in 
every  instance  as  favorable  as  I  could  honestly  make  them, 
and  that  I  took  pains  in  inquiries  from  residents  and  experts 
to  ascertain  its  capacity  wherever  we  went. 

Int.  159. — With  how  many  settlers  or  occupants  of  the 
White  Mud  Valley  did  you  converse  on  your  return  journey 
in  1853?  .  . 

Ans. — The  only  one  I  can  now  recall  was  Mr. 'Angus  Mc- 
Donald, the  chief  officer  of  the  Company  at  Fort  Colvile, 
under  whose  management  whatever  property  the  Company 
might  have  possessed  in  Mill  Creek  Valley  was.  He  is  a  gen- 
tleman of  great  intelligence  and  habits  of  observation,  and 
who  was  perfectly  familiar  with  the  valley  and  its  productions, 
from  him  I  obtained  most  of  the  specific  information  I  ob- 
tained in  relation  thereto.  As  to  any  inhabitants  of  White 
Mud,  which,  as  I  understand,  is  merely  a  locality  in  the  valley, 
I  remember  none  at  that  time  except  Indians. 

Int.  160. — Is  not  Mill  creek  also  called  White  Mud? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  ever  heard. 

I)it.  161. — Have  you  not  youi'self,  in  speaking  of  this  creek, 
spoken  of  it  as  Mill  creek  or  White  Mud? 

Ana. — I  don't  think  I  ever  have,  taking  the  creek  or  its 
valley  as  a  whole. 

Int.  162. — Did  you  notice  any  cabins  on  Mill  creek  on  the 
return  journey  of  the  McClellan  expedition? 

Ans. — There  were  scattered  along  Mill  creek  for  a  number 
of  miles  the  houses  of  discharged  servants,  most  of  which  might 
be  designated  as  cabins. 

Int.  163. — Did  you  go  into  any  of  these  cabins,  or  converse 
with  any  of  the  occupants?     If  so,  name  them. 

Ans. — That  I  cannot  now  remember,  though  I  probably  did. 

Int.  164. — Did  you  purchase  the  flour,  or  see  it  after  it  was 
purchased,  which  you  say  the  employes  of  the  Bounla.;-  C  ni- 
mission  refused  to  eat? 

Ans. — I  did  not  purchase  it,  but  I  saw  it. 


k> 


l*ri 


'(!! 


»'!.' 


440 

Int.  105. — How  ilo  you  know  it  was  purchased  at  Col  vile? 

Aiis. — Ilear.say,  of  course.  Wc  did  not  bring  it  alonr;  with 
us,  and  I  don't  know  where  else  it  could  have  been  obtained. 
I  was  told  by  our  commissary  it  came  from  the  Company's  niill. 

Int.  100. — Who  told  you  the  employes  would  not  eat  it? 

Ans. — I  myself  heard  the  employes  making  complaint 
about  it. 

I/it.  107. — AVho  was  your  Commissary? 

Ans. — Mr.  John  N.  King. 

Int.  108. — Under  whoso  charge  were  the  buildings  of  the 
Northwester?!  Boundary  Commission  erected  in  "1850  and  1800? 

Anf>. — I  am  not  positive  about  that.  I  think  that  the  offi- 
cers' quarters  were  erected  by  the  person  employed  by  the 
escort  in  erecting  the  garrison  buildings,  as  it  was  intended 
that  the}^  should  be  uniform  with  those.  The  men's  quarters, 
stables,  and  so  forth,  were,  I  believe,  erected  entirely  by  our 
own  men,  and  I  suppose  under  the  direction  of  Lieutenant, 
since  General,  John  G.  Parke. 

Lit.  109. — Do  you  know  when  the  Hudson's  Bay  buildings 
at  Colvile  wore  erected? 

Alls. — Not  of  my  own  knowledge.  I  have  been  informed, 
however,  that  after  the  amalgamation  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  with 
theNoi'thwest  Company,  about  the  year  1822,  the  post  founded 
by  Astor's  part}',  and  known  as  the  Spokane  House,  was  aban- 
doned, and  Fort  Colvile  erected  instead  of  it.  It  was  I  believe 
a  very  old  fort. 

Int.  170. — Is  this  the  time  you  speak  of  when  you  mention 
the  cost  of  its  construction? 

Ans. —  In  speaking  of  the  cost  of  any  of  Hudson's  Bay 
Company's  posts,  I  should  refer  to  any  time  preceding  1848, 
the  date  of  the  discovery  of  gold  in  California. 

Int.  171. — How  many  times  were  you  at  Fort  Colvile  during 
the  winter  of  1859-00  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know;  several  times.  We  used  to  take  sleigh 
rides  down  there. 

Int.  172. — At  the  time  of  these  visits,  was  not  the  country 
covered  Avith  snow  ? 


447 


ou  mention 


Aiis. — After  tho  winter  fairly  set  in  it  wag.  I  had,  how- 
ever, stopped  there  two  or  three  times  previously. 

Int.  173. — How  far  was  it  from  Fort  Colvile  to  tho  camp  of 
the  Boundary  Commission  ? 

Ans. — Twelve  or  fourteen  miles,  I  think. 

Int.  174. — How  long  did  you  stop  at  Fort  Okanagan  when 
you  visited  it  in  1813  ? 

Ans. — The  main  camp  was  in  the  neighborhood,  I  think, 
about  a  week,  while  we  made  reconnoissances  in  tho  surround- 
ing country.  I  don't  suppose  I  was  at  the  post  itself  more 
than  three  times. 

Int.  175. — How  long  did  you  remain  there  at  those  times  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember.  It  was  not  a  place  attractive 
enough  to  keep  any  one  there  longer  than  to  transact  his  busi- 
ness. I  remember,  however,  having  examined  the  furs  col- 
lected there  during  the  preceding  season. 

Int.  176. — Who  was  the  officer  in  charge  of  the  post? 

Ans. — A  Canadian  named  Lafleur. 

Int.  177. — Did  you  not,  in  making  your  answer  to  "  Inter- 
rogatory 14,"  in  reference  to  Fort  Okanagan,  have  before  you 
your  report  on  Indian  tribes,  and  did  you  not  dictate  tlio 
answer  to  be  written  down  almost  entirely  from  that  book  ? 

Ans. — From  that  report  and  the  notes  I  took  on  tho  spot. 

Int.  178. — Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  the  Canadian 
in  charge,  with  reference  to  the  post? 

Ans. — Yes ;  I  rode  over  with  him  from  our  camp  to  the 
post,  I  think,  on  both  occasions,  and  had  a  good  deal  of  talk 
vith  him  about  its  aifairs  and  the  country  around. 

Int.  179. — Do  you  know,  from  your  personal  knowledge, 
anything  more  of  Okanagan  now  than  you  did  in  1853  ? 

Ans. — Nothing. 

Int.  180. — Was  your  report  then  true,  to  the  best  of  your 
knowledge  and  belief  ? 

Avs. — Of  course  it  was. 

Int.  181. — What  authority  have  you  for  this  statement 
made  in  your  report :  "  The  post  does  not  probably  pay  its 
expenses?" 

^w«.— Mr.  McDonald's,  of  Fort  Colvile. 
29  H 


3iJj 


r'JIm.vi 


•■I 
'I 

m 


i 


H: 


448 

/n<.  182. — Give,  as  near  as  you  can,  Mr.  McDonald's  Ian' 
guage,  and  when  it  was,  and  who  were  present. 

Ant. — I  cannot  pretend  to  state  his  exact  words.  He  stated, 
however,  that  but  few  furs  were  taken  there.  The  conversation 
was  after  my  arrival  at  Fort  Oolvile  in  the  same  fall.  Wliether 
any  body  was  present  or  not,  I  don't  remember. 

Int.  188. — Did  he  state  to  you  that  the  post  probably  did 
not  pay  its  expenses,  or  was  that  an  inference  of  yours  from 
the  statement  which  you  say  he  did  make? 

Ana. — It  was  not  an  inference  from  that  statement  alone. 
He  did  state  that  the  fort  did  not  pay  expenses,  and  he  stated 
also  that  few  furs  were  taken  there. 

Int.  184. — Did  he  state  plainly  and  distinctly  to  you  that 
this  post  did  not  pay  expenses? 

Ans. — Such  is  my  recollection  of  his  language,  and  I  have 
no  doubt  of  it. 

Int.  185. — Did  you  believe  at  the  time  you  wrote  your 
report  that  this  post  did  not  pay  its  expenses  from  Mr.  Mc- 
Donald's statement  ? 

Ana. — Certainly  I  did. 

Int.  186. — Why,  then,  did  you  qualify  Mr.  McDonald's 
statement,  and  say  that  the  post  did  not  probably  pay  ex- 
penses? 

Ana. — I  did  not  remember  that  I  had ;  my  remembrance 
was  that  the  statement  was  unqualified. 

Int.  187. — Was  not  this  statement  made  by  you  in  your  re- 
port on  the  Indian  tribes,  spoken  of  before :  "A  few  furs  only 
are  taken,  and  the  post  probably  does  not  pay  expenses;" 
and  have  you  not,  in  answer  to  "Interrogatory  181,"  admitted 
the  correctness  of  the  latter  part  of  this  quotation,  and  given 
Mr.  McDonald  as  your  authority  for  the  statement  ? 

Ana. — Yes. 

Int.  188. — Do  you  now  state  that  it  is  correct,  as  qualified? 

An». — It  is  undoubtedly  true,  as  qualified.  I  believe  it  is 
also  true  without  qualification.  McDonald  did  tell  me  that 
the  posts,  collectively,  in  the  American  territory  did  not  pay 
their  expenses,  and  it  is  possible  that  in  speaking  of  Okana- 
gan  separately,  he  may  not  have  used  the  expression  absolutely 


44D 

t)iat  it  did  not  pay.     I  know  that  the  trade  of  Olcanagan  was 
particularly  referred  to. 

Int.  18&. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  trade  in  the 
country,  other  than  McDonald's  statement,  and  are  not  the 
statements  just  referred  to  by  you  the  authority  on  which  you 
have  spoken  of  the  profit,  or  want  of  profit,  of  the  post  at 
Okanagan  ? 

Arts. — Not  altogether;  as  I  am  tolerably  well  acquainted 
with  the  quantity  and  kinds  of  animals  the  furs  of  which 
would  be  brought  to  Okanagan  for  sale.  I  know  also  that 
the  Indians  trading  there  are  not  numerous.  I  saw  what  the 
post  contained,  both  in  the  way  of  furs  and  goods ;  and  t 
should  form  my  own  opinions,  independent  of  information  from 
others. 

Int.  190. — Was  it  your  own  opinion  in  1853,  independent  of 
the  statement  of  Mr.  McDonald,  that  "a  few  furs  only  were 
taken,  and  that  the  post  probably  did  not  pay  expenses  ?" 

Ana. — I  presume  it  was.  Certainly,  on  looking  back,  that 
would  be  my  opinion  now. 

Int.  191. — Is  it  not  your  opinion  now  also  that  the  post 
clearly  did  not  pay  expenses  ? 

Ans. — I  have  already  stated  that  I  do  not  believe  it  did ; 
otherwise,  after  Lafleur's  death,  the  Company  would  have  sent 
«ome  white  man  to  replace  him,  instead,  as  I  have  heard,  leav^ 
ing  it  in  charge  of  an  Indian. 

Int.  192. — Is  not  the  fact  of  Lafleur's  death  mere  hearsay 
on  your  part  ? 

Am. — Of  course ;  I  did  not  see  him  die,  but  I  was  told, 
when  in  Oregon  in  1860,  that  Lafleur  had  been  drowned  in 
crossing  the  Walla-Walla  river.  I  had  heard  the  year  previ- 
ous, from  my  Indian  guide,  that  the  post  was  in  charge  of  his 
brother-in-law. 

Int.  193. — Was  there  not  at  Fort  Okanagan  powder  and 
ball? 

Ans. — I  presume  there  was. 

hit.  194. — Have  you  not  stated  that  the  price  for  martin  or 
red  fox,  at  Okanagan,  was  ten  charges  of  powder  and  ball, 
and  for  beaver,  otter,  or  bear  skin  thirty  charges  ? 


j'^#f 


''i^.W 


Wj 


Vi-l'jU 


m 


'U 


vi 


f\\4: 


.vf.' 


450 

Ans. — Yes ;  those  were  the  prices  given  me  by  Laflcur. 
Int.  195. — Arc  you  acquainted  with  tiie  habits  of  the  ani- 
mals  hist  mentioned  in  the  country  within  a  hundred  miles 
north  and  south,  and  fifty  east  and  west,  of  Fort  Okanagan — 
with  their  number  and  varieties  ? 

Ans. — I  have  been  through  ti  '',t  country  from  north  to 
south,  on  one  expedition  in  1858,  and  east  and  west  in  both 
1853  and  1859,  on  the  first  of  which  occasions  wo  had  profes- 
sional hunters,  and,  on  both,  naturalists  engaged  in  collcctiiig 
specimens  of  all  the  different  animals  to  be  found  there;  and 
I  have  also  talked  with  the  Indian  guides  and  hunters,  and  I 
am  well  satisfied  that  animals  of  the  description  mentioucil,  or 
any  other  fur-beaving  animsls,  are  very  scarce  througliout  the 
whole. 

Int.  196. — "Were  not  your  professional  hunters  occupied  in 
the  search  of  animals  for  food  ? 

Ans. — They  were;  and  very  few  of  them  they  got.  But 
they  were  also  instructed  to  collect  specimens  of  every  thing 
of  interest. 

Itit.  197. — Did  your  hunters  or  your  naturalists  on  either  of 
these  expeditions  have  with  them,  or  use,  traps  for  beaver  or 
otter  ? 

Ans. — The  huntc  vs  had  no  traps,  but,  had  they  found  signs 
of  game,  they  had  sense  enough  to  make  traps  for  tiic  occa- 
sion. The  naturjilists,  I  think,  had  traps,  but  only  fo4'  small 
animahi.  They  also  held  out  inducements  to  the  Indians  to 
bring  in  animals. 

Int.  198. — Did  you  ever  see  or  know  of  any  small  trap  being 
set  by  any  naturalist  of  your  expedition ;  if  so,  state  when  it 
was,  and  whom? 

Ans. — I  recollect  that  Dr.  Kcnnerly  set  traps  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Colville,  and,  I  think,  elsewhere  on  the  route. 

Int.  199. — Do  you  not  know  that  traps  for  the  taking  of 
tLo  fur-bearing  animals,  especially  fox,  beaver,  otter,  and  boar, 
require  to  be  made  with  great  care  and  skill,  and  cannot  be 
made  but  by  a  person  skilled  in  the  art? 

Ans. — I  know  that  the  traps  used  by  regular  trappers  arc 
constructed  with  a  certain  degree  of  skill  and  adaptation,  but 


451 

ruder  methods  are  often  employed  with  perhaps  equal  success, 
and  in  the  case  of  the  larger  animals  particularly,  the  gun 
can  be  used  instead  of  the  trap,  at  any  rate,  when  they  are 
abundant. 

Int.  200. — Did  you  ever  see  a  trap  of  large  size  set  for  the 
purpose  of  catching  animals  on  the  Pacific  coast  or  in  the  in- 
terior ;  if  so,  state  where  it  was  and  at  what  time? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  I  did.  I  think  that  Dr.  Kennerly 
had  a  boar  or  wolf  trap  with-  him,  but  do  not  remember  to 
have  seen  it  used.  , 

Cross-Examination  Besumed,  June  19,  1867- 


Int.  201. — Do  you  speak  French  sufficiently  well  to  hold  a 
conversation  in  that  language? 

Ans. — I  can  carry  on  ordinary  conversation  in  French,  with- 
out pretending  to  any  grammatical  accuracy  or  to  fluency. 

Int.  202. — In  what  language  did  you  converse  with  Mr. 
Lafleur  ? 

Ans. — In  very  bad  French.  I  had  previously  picked  up 
some  of  the  Canadian  patois,  and  generally  made  myself  in- 
telligible to  him,  and  understood  mostj  at  any  rate,  of  what 
he  said. 

Int.  203. — What  season  of  the  year  did  Mr.  McDonald  arrive 
at  Nisqually  with  the  furs? 

Ans. — That  I  cannot  "xactly  state.  It  must  have  been  in 
the  summer  or  fall,  or  hw  could  "not  have  crossed  the  moun- 
tains on  account  i>f  the  snows. 

Int.  204. — Did  vou  not  learn  from  Mr.  McDonald  when  ho 
was  speaking  to  ycu  about  the  boat  expedition  up  the  river  in 
1853,  that  they  had  gone  down  the  river  the  same  season  be- 
fore coming  up? 

Am. — No;  I  don't  think  I  learned  it-  I  took  it  for  granted, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  McDonald's  station  being  at  Colvile  he 
must  have  jjone  down  in  order  to  come  back  again. 

Int.  205. — In  speaking  of  the  fur  trade,  which  you  say  Mr. 
McDonald  did  in  your  answers,  did  he  not  tell  you  that  the 
furs  were  taken  down  every  season  from  the  post  to  the  main 


-'Ov; 


Ji      »    ' 


•' 


452 

depot  at  Vancover  by  the  same  expedition  that  brought  back 
goods  and  supplies  ? 

Ans. — I  knew  that  fact  without  his  telling  me. 

Int.  206. — How  then  could  you  say  that  you  saw  at  Okan- 
agan,  the  last  season's  furs,  when  you  could  only  have  seen 
those  collected  since  the  boat  expedition  of  that  season? 

Ana. — I  spoke  of  the  season  preceding  my  visit  there,  which 
was  in  the  latter  part  of  the  summer  or  beginning  of  the  fall, 
and  the  furs  which  I  saw  I  suppose  were  receive<l  subsequently 
to  the  departure  of  the  boats,  but  collected  at  what  time  I 
don't  know.  The  season  of  collecting  and  the  season  of  trade 
not  necessarily  corresponding. 

Int.  207. — You  wish  now  to  be  understood  then  by  the  terms 
"during  the  preceding  season"  to  mean  the  time  preceding 
your  arrival  there,  and  after  departure  of  the  boat  expedition? 

Ans. — Without  knowing  anything  about  the  fact,  I  supposed 
that  the  boat  expedition  took  down  in  the  spring  all  the  furs 
that  it  then  found  at  Okanagan ;  but  it  is  to  be  noticed  that 
the  Okanagan  post  was  inhabited  through  the  year,  and  that 
therefore  there  was  not  the  same  necessity  of  the  furs  being 
collected  during  the  winter  that  there  was  in  relation  to  the 
Kootenay  and  Flat  Head  posts,  which  were  abandoned  early 
in  the  spring. 

l7it.  208. — How  long  after  you  left  Okanagan  did  you  arrive 
at  Colvile? 

An8. — On  reference  to  my  note-book,  I  find  that  I  was  mis- 
taken in  the  date,  and  that  it  was  much  later  when  we  reached 
Okanagan  than  I  at  first  supposed.  We  reached  Fort  Okana- 
gan, on  the  first  occasion,  on  the  21st  of  Sep.  ,jiber,  and  left 
there  finally  on  the  5th  of  October,  reaching  Fort  Colvile  on 
the  18th,  and  remaining  until  the  22d. 

Int.  209. — What  date  did  you  leave  Vancouver?; 

Ana. — On  the  18th  of  July. 

Int.  210. — Had  the  boat  expedition  from  Okanagan  reached 
Vancouver  before  you  left? 

Ana. — I  presume  it  had,  as  we  heard  of  it  between  the  8th 
and  lOtb  of  August  while  at  Cheques,  on  the  summit  of  the 


453 

Cascade  range,  at  which  time  it  had  passed  up  the  river  on  its 
return,  as  we  were  told  by  the  Indians. 

Int.  211. — Did  not  your  party  have  letters  from  the  agents 
of  the  Company,  to  McDonald,  the  officer  in  charge  at  Fort 
CoWile? 

Ans. — I  presume  they  had. 

Int.  212.; — Were  not  your  party  in  constant  communication 
with  the  Company's  officers  at  Fort  Vancouver  before  you  left 
for  the  interior,  and  were  you  not  the  chief  agent  in  that  com- 
munication ? 

A')is. — If  I  recollect  right  I  arrived  there  two  days  before 
the  party  started.  The  quartermaster  of  the  expedition, 
Lieutenant  Hodges,  who  was  equally  well  known  to  the  Com- 
pany as  myself,  in  conjunction  with  Captain  U.  S.  Grant,  the 
quartermaster  at  Fort  Vancouver,  made  most,  if  not  all,  of 
the  arrangements. 

Int.  213. — Did  you  not  make  use  of  this  language  in  your 
oxamination-in-chief,  speaking  of  the  country  around  Colvile 
i,ud  the  creek  near  there,  "a  narrow  valley  bordered  by 
ranges  of  hills,  through  which  runs  a  stream  known  as  Mill  or 
White  Mud  creek?"  From  whom  did  you  hear  there  were  two 
names  to  this  creek? 

Ans. — Looking  again  at  my  note-book,  I  see  that  both  names 
are  used  in  relation  to  the  same  stream,  but  my  impression  is 
that  the  White  Mud  creek  is  properly  the  stream  called  the 
Little  Pend-Oreille,  which  runs  into  it  near  the  farm  claimed 
by  the  Company. 

Int.  214. — Do  you  now  believe  that  the  entry  in  your  note- 
book made  at  the  time  was  incorrect? 

Ans. — In  one  sense  it  might  have  been,  for  I  d  j  not  recol- 
lect, on  my  second  visit,  ever  hearing  it  called  by  the  latter 
name,  and  I  probably  applied  the  name  of  the  junction  to  the 
entire  stream. 

Int.  215. — In  what  did  you  rely  in  giving  your  description 
of  Colvile,  on  your  note-book  or  on  your  memory,  and  where 
they  differ,  on  which  do  you  prefer  that  reliance  should  be 
placed? 

Ans.— In  describing  Fort  Colvile  as  it  was  in  1853,  I  re- 


■f^t,. 


m 


ri  T 


i^mm 


m.  .4 


m 


;«*■■*''''■**  Jib 


^:i« 


454 

ferred  chiefly  to  my  note-book,  the  important  facts,  however, 
as  I  consider  them,  being  all  in  my  memory.  The  notes,  serv- 
ing to  render  that  memory  more  distinct,  especially  as  having 
traversed  the  ground  the  second  time,  and  at  a  more  recent 
period,  they  would  prevent  my  confusing  the  condition  of 
things  at  the  difiFerent  dates. 

Int.  216. — When  you  answered  "Interrogatory  14,"  did 
you  then  know  that  Mill  creek  was  known  as  White  Mud 
creek  ? 

Ans. — In  giving  the  name  of  White  Mud  creek  as  another 
name  for  Mill  creek  I  undoubtedly  simply  read  from  the  notes 
■without  the  phrase  making  any  impression  on  my  mind.  I 
knew,  of  course,  just  as  much  about  it  as  now.  The  name 
given  to  the  creek  in  my  published  report  is  Slawntehus,  by 
which  name  it  was  inserted  on  our  map,  and  I  believe  that 
also  was  simply  the  name  of  a  locality  on  the  creek,  like  that  of 
White  Mud.  The  importance  of  the  question  never  occurred 
to  mo  for  a  moment. 

Int.  217. — What  authority  did  you  have  for  this  statement, 
speaking  of  Fort  Okanagan,  in  answer  to  "Interrogatory  19:" 
"The  post  clearly  did  not  pay  its  expenses?" 

Ans. — I  have  already  answered  that  question  in  reply  to 
previous  cross-questions. 

Int.  218. — What  new  light  had  you  on  the  subject  that  led 
you  to  say  at  the  date  of  your  report  that  the  post  pro  )ably 
did  not  pay  expenses,  and  some  fourteen  years  afterwards  to 
swear  that  it  clearly  did  not  pay  its  expenses  ? 

Ans. — In  answer  to  this  I  refer  to  my  answer  to  interroga- 
tories numbered  from  181  to  188  inclusive. 

Int.  219. — How  do  you  know  that  the  buildings  you  have 
described  as  the  Kootenay  post  were  so  in  reality  ? 

Ans. — If  they  were  not,  there  was  no  Kootenay  post  south 
of  the  line,  as  this  was  the  only  place  where  any  buildings 
were  to  be  seen  on  the  Kootenay  river  between  the  49th  par- 
allel and  the  great  bend  of  the  Kootenay ;  because  they  are 
so  located  on  British  and  American  official  maps;  and  because 
I  was  so  informed  by  the  Indian  guides. 


455 

Int.  220. — Were  these  buildings  you  saw  made  of  squared 
timber  ? 

Ans. — They  were  not.  The  logs  might  have  been  flattened 
somewhat  where  they  rested  on  one  another,  but  even  this  I 
doubt. 

Int.  221. — Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  this  man 
Linklater  when  you  met  him  coming  up  ? 

Ans. — I  stopped  and  spoke  to  him,  and  asked  him  some 
thing  about  the  route. 

Int.  '2J2,'2. — Were  you  at  this  place  at  any  other  time  than 
at  the  time  you  spent  some  weeks  in  its  neighborhood  in  the 
fall  of  18G0  ? 

Ans. — No. 

Int.  223. — How  long  were  you  at  this  place? 

Ans. — If  you  mean  by  this  place  the  Kootenay  post,  I 
was  there  only  long  enough  to  look  around  at  it  in  passing. 

Int.  224. — Is  the  photograph  mentioned  in  your  answer  a 
photograph  of  either  of  the  two  buildings  which  you  say  con- 
stituted the  Company's  post  at  Kootenay  ? 

Ans. — It  is  not.  It  is  a  log  house,  constructed,  as  I  was 
informed,  by  the  Indians  for  a  church,  in  which  the  Catholic 
priests  who  occasionally  visited  the  Kootenays  hold  service, 
but  it  is  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  post. 

Int.  225. — Have  you  not  described  in  your  Indian  report 
the  Company's  post  at  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — I  have. 

Int.  226. — Have  you  not  embodied  in  your  answer  to  Inter- 
rogatory 21  an  extract  from  that  report  verbatim,  with  the 
necessary  change  in  the  grammar,  beginning  with  the  words, 
"The  post  was  a  parallelogram,"  and  ending  witb  the  sen- 
tence, "clerks  and  other  employes;"  and  also  another  extract, 
beginning  with  the  words,  "On  which  the  fort  and  United 
States  barracks  are  situated,"  and  ending  with  the  words, 
"respectively  half  and  one  mile  square?" 

Ans. — I  have  embodied  in  my  answer  substantially  extracts 
from  that  report,  the  extent  of  which  a  comparison  of  the 
two  would  show. 


nS'ft 


i^ti 


<■'; 


-»'.',''' 


■H.   .M 


456 

Int.  227. — Does  this  description  which  you  have  given  of 
Fort  Vancouver  describe  it  as  it  was  in  the  summer  of  1853? 

Ans. — It  was  so  intended  to  do,  and  I  think  does. 

Int.  228. — Did  you  make  this  statement  from  information 
from  Governor  Ogden  or  from  your  own  knowledge :  "  The  plain 
on  which  the  fort  and  the  United  States  barracks  are  situated, 
with  a  small  one  behind  it,  making  together  a  tract  of  about 
four  miles  square?" 

Ans. — That  description  embraced  the  original  United  States 
reservation  made  by  Colonel  Loring  in  1850,  with  the  appro- 
bation of  Governor  Ogden,  and  for  the  protection  of  the  Com- 
pany, as  well  as  of  the  post,  from  intrusion  by  settlers.  During 
my  conversation  with  Governor  Ogden,  in  reference  to  the 
Company's  claims,  I  think  that  tract  was  specially  referred  to 
as  being  one  known  and  designated. 

Int.  229. — Did  he  tell  you  how  many  acres  were  under  cui* 
tivation  ? 

Ans. — According  to  my  recollection,  the  amount  mentioned 
in  the  report  was  given  to  me  by  him. 

Inf.  2.30. — How  much  did  he  sav  was  in  cultivation  ? 

Ans. — I  think  the  amount  there  mentioned  was  a  thousand 
acres. 

Int.  231. — Did  he  tell  you  at  that  time  that  there  was  a 
thousand  acres  in  cultivation? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  he  did.  I  think  it  was  enclosed  or 
under  cultivation ;  but  I  do  not  pretend  to  quote  the  words  of 
the  report  without  having  it  before  me. 

Int.  232. — Do  you  now  distinctly  recollect,  without  the  re- 
port or  your  note-book,  what  Mr.  Ogden  did  tell  you  about 
the  Company's  land  claim  &t  Vancouver? 

Ans. — I  recollect  distinctly  having  conversations  with  Mr. 
Ogden  on  the  subjeci;,  whose  information  I  embrace  in  the 
report,  and  from  it  into  nhe  testimony.  I  refer  to  the  direct 
interrogatory  for  my  reply,  not  choosing  to  quote  literally  by 
memory  from  the  wiitt#u  asatemenj.. 


«■>■ 


457 


CroiB-Examination  Resumed,  June  25, 1867. 


e  under  cul- 


it  montioned 


there  was  a 


Int.  234. — How  long  were  you  at  Vancouver  before  the  de- 
parture of  General  McClellan's  expedition? 

Ans. — I  am  not  positive.     It  was  but  a  few  days,  however. 

Int.  '235. — Have  you  not  already  stated  in  the  course  of 
this  examination  that  you  arrived  at  Vancouver  two  days  be- 
fore the  party  started? 

Ans. — I  do  not  recollect  that  I  have,  as  this  examination 
commenced  some  time  ago.  I  do  not  pretend  to  recollect  all 
the  details,  concerning  many  of  which  I  refreshed  my  mind  by 
reference  to  my  notes. 

Int.  236. — Were  you  not  fully  occupied  while  at  Vancouver 
in  preparations  for  your  departure? 

Ans. — I  presume  I  was,  most  of  the  time. 

Int.  237. — What  time  did  you  return  to  Vancouver,  and  how 
many  days  did  you  remain  there? 

Ans. — I  returned  late  in  the  fall.  The  number  of  days  I 
do  not  remember,  but  it  was  only  a  few. 

Int.  238. — Where  did  you  go  from  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — I  went  down  to  Astoria,  thence  to  Chinock  and 
Shoal- Water  Bay,  and  attempted  to  pass  through  by  way  of 
the  Willopah  to  the  Boisfort  prairie  and  to  Olympia.  I  failed 
in  consequence  of  the  weather,  returned  to  Chinook  and  Asto- 
ria, thence  went  to  Monticello  and  the  Cowlitz  Farm  and  to 
Olympia.  On  reconsideration,  I  think  I  w^as  at  Vancouver 
about  a  week  before  going  down  the  river. 

Int.  239. — What  was  the  stage  of  the  river  at  Vancouver 
when  you  were  there  before  starting  on  McClellan's  expe- 
dition ? 

Alls. — Th«  river  was  well  up. 

Int.  240. — How  far  below  Vancouver,  going  down  the  river 
by  land,  were  you  at  this  time? 

Anx. —  I  did  not  go  down  the  river  by  land. 

Int.  241, — How  far  were  you  in  any  direction  by  land  from 
Fort  Vancouver,  at  the  time  you  were  there,  before  the  start- 


458 


ing  of  McClcllan's  expedition  in  1853,  on  the  north  side  of  the 
river? 

Ans. — I  don't  know,  though  I  very  probably  took  short 
rides  in  the  vicinity. 

Int.  242.— State  where,  in  what  direction,  and  with  whom, 
or  by  yourself,  you  took  any  single  ride  at  the  time  just 
spoken  of? 

Ans. — In  the  first  place,  I  have  not  stated  that  I  took  any 
ride,  though  I  was  in  the  habit  of  riding,  as  everybody  in  that 
country  is.  In  the  second  place,  I  don't  charge  my  memory 
with  matters  of  that  sort. 

Int.  243. — Can  you  state  that  you  were  at  a  distance  of  two 
miles  in  any  direction  from  Fort  Vancouver,  either  on  foot  or 
horseback,  at  the  time  you  were  there,  before  the  starting  of 
McClellan's  expedition? 

Ans. — No,  I  don't  recollect  about  it. 

Int.  244. — After  your  return  from  the  McClellan  expedi- 
tion did  you  at  that  time  go  more  than  two  miles  in  any  direc- 
tion on  the  north  side  of  the  river  ? 

Ans. — I  think  not. 

Int.  245. — Were  you  at  Vancouver  at  any  other  times  during 
the  year  1853  than  the  time  already  mentioned? 

Ans. — I  was,  on  several  occasions. 

Int.  246. — State  when  those  occasions  were,  and,  as  near  as 
you  can,  the  dates,  and  how  long  you  remained  there? 

Ans. — I  cannot  give  the  dates.  I  was  backwards  and  for- 
wards on  the  business  of  the  custom-house,  cr  for  pleasure, 
between  the  time  of  my  return  to  Oregon,  in  January,  and  the 
departure  of  that  expedition. 

Int.  247. — If  you  were  there  more  than  a  day  at  any  one 
time,  state  at  which  of  these  visits  that  was. 

Ans. — I  did  not  keep  a  record  of  daily  transactions,  except 
during  the  various  expeditions  on  which  I  was  employed  by 
the  Government,  although  I  certainly  made  minutes  of  matters 
which  were  brought  to  my  attention,  or  excited  my  interest, 
but  not  always  with  dates.  I  remember  that  I  was  there  on 
the  discharge  of  the  cargoes  of  the  two  vessels  consigned  to 
the  Company,  which  arrived  during  my  collectorship;  but  how 


L  as  near  as 


at  any  one 


459 

long  I  staid  on  either  of  those  occasions,  or  any  other,  I  will 
not  pretend  to  state  now. 

Int.  248. — Can  you  now  state  that  at  any  of  these  times  you 
vent,  either  on  foot  or  on  horseback,  more  than  two  miles 
from  Fort  Vancouver  in  any  direction  on  the  north  bank  of  the 
river? 

Anst. — No,  I  cannot  state  whether  upon  any  particular  occa- 
sion I  did. 

Int.  249'. — Can  you  state  whether  on  any  of  those  occasions 
you  did? 

Ans. — I  have  been  frequently  more  than  two  miles  in  dif- 
ferent directions  from  Fo:t  Vancouver,  and  on  that  side  of  the 
river,  but  when  I  do  not  precisely  remember. 

Int.  250. — You  have  stated  that  in  the  year  1853,  and  be- 
fore the  visit  you  made  to  Vancouver  when  you  started  on  the 
McClellan  expedition,  that  you  were  at  Fort  Vancouver  on 
several  occasions  for  business  or  pleasure,  will  you  now  state 
whether  upon  any  of  these  visits  you  went  in  any  direction 
from  Fort  Vancouver  more  than  two  miles  on  the  north  side 
of  the  river? 

Ans. — I  think  I  did. 

Int.  251. — State  in  what  direction  you  rode  or  walked,  how 
far  you  went,  and  in  what  month  it  was. 

Ans. — I  have  already  informed  you  that  as  to  details  of  this 
kind  I  could  give  no  precise  answer.  I  used  to  go  out  to  the 
Fourth  Plain,  which  is  in  a  northeasterly  direction  from  the 
post,  and  up  or  down  the  river,  as  the  notion  took  me,  when 
riding  for  pleasure. 

Int.  252.— Did  you  go  to  the  Fourth  Plain  in  1853,  before 
you  started  on  the  McClellan  expedition? 

Ans. — More  than  probably. 

Int.  253. — Do  you  distinctly  recollect  this  visit  to  the  Fourth 
Plain,  and  can  you  state  where  you  stopped  when  you  got 
there,  or  who  was  with  you? 

Ans. — No,  I  can't  distinctly  recollect  anything  about  it, 
any  more  than  I  can  the  thousand  and  one  rides  that  I  have 
taken  without  particular  purpose  in  the  course  of  my  life. 
When  I  went  out  there  I  usually  called  at  Mr.  Covington's. 


■u 


% 


f 


460 

tni.  254. — IIow  far  did  you  go  down  the  river  on  the  north 
Bide  before  you  left  on  the  McClellan  expedition  in  1853? 

Ans. — Really  I  don't  remember,  nor  whether  I  went  down 
or  up  in  that  year,  although  I  presume  I  did ;  how  far  I  can't 
say. 

Int.  255. — State  how  far  you  ever  went  down  the  river  at 
any  time  before  the  McClellan  expedition,  on  the  north  side? 

Aiis. — I  won't  pretend  to  state. 

Jnt.  25G. — Were  you  ever  down  the  river  as  far  as  the 
Cathlapootl  river,  by  land,  before  the  McClellan  expedition 
in  1853? 

Ans. — No,  1  never  was. 

Int.  257. — Look  on  this  map  now  shoWn  to  you,  in  evidence 
in  this  cause,  and  say  whether  you  were  ever  down  the  river 
below  Vancouver  to  the  Shallapoo  lake  before  the  McClellan 
expedition  in  1853? 

Ans. — I  really  can't  say,  though  I  think  it  more  than  pro* 
bable. 

Int.  258.— -At  what  date  did  you  visit  the  Cathlapootl  river 
by  land,  and  what  time  of  the  year? 

Ans. — I  cannot  lay  my  hand  on  the  memorandum-book  in 
which  I  kept  the  filed  notes  of  that  exploration  to  ascertain  the 
exact  date;  it  was,  however,  some  time  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  summer  or  early  in  the  fall  of  1855. 

Int.  259.—- Were  you  ever  at  the  Mill  Plain  before  the  Mc- 
Clellan expedition? 

Ans.-^l  have  already  stated  that  my  recollection  of  the 
Mill  Plain  is  indistinct.  I  have  been  there,  and  once  camped 
near  the  mouth  of  the  creek  on  which  the  mill  is,  but  I  don't 
recollect  much  about  it,  nor  when  I  was  there. 

Int.  260. — When  was  this  report  of  the  Indian  tribes  written 
from  which  you  have  made  extracts  in  your  deposition? 

Ans. — In  the  winter  of  1853-4. 

Int.  261. — Did  Gov.  Ogden  make  these  statements  to  you  at 
your  visit  after  your  return  from  the  McClellan  expedition, 
while  you  stopped  at  Vancouver? 

Am.-^l  frequently  conversed  with  Governor  Ogden  on  the 
subject  of  the  Company  and  its  claims,  from  the  time  I  first 


461 


became  acquainted  usitk  him  in  1849-50  down  to  his  death* 
With  regard  to  the  statement  of  those  claims  as  worded  in 
this  report,  I  think  it  was  made  at  the  time  of  my  return  from 
the  McClellan  expedition.  This,  however,  may  not  be  abso* 
lately  so.  I  will  now  state  this,  that  although  that  report  has 
been  published  for  many  years,  and  has  been  read  by  leading 
officers  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  no  one  of  them  has 
ever  yet  controverted,  in  my  presence,  the  statements  I  have 
made  there. 

Int.  262. — You  wish  to  state,  then,  that  your  communica- 
tions from  Mr.  Ogdcn,  to  the  best  of  your  knowledge,  were 
made  after  your  return  from  the  McClellan  expedition  ? 

Ans. — No  ;  I  don't  say  so  positively,  though  I  am  positive 
I  had  communication  with  Governor  Ogden  after  my  return- 
from  the  McClellan  expedition,  and  before  the  publication  of 
my  report. 
Int.  263. — How  many  times  were  you  on  Sauvic's  island? 
Ans. — Only  once  that  I  recollect. 

Int.  264. — Was  it  at  this  visit  that  you  observed  the  fact 
that  the  cattle  were  obliged  to  swim  to  the  main  land  on 
account  of  the  freshet  ? 

Ans. — No ;  that  was  not  a  matter  of  personal  observation. 
That  the  island  was  very  low,  and  subject  to  freshet,  at  least 
in  part,  any  one  could  see  from  the  deck  of  a  steamer  in  pass- 
ing ;  that  the  cattle  had  been  obliged  to  swim  to  the  main 
land,  I  was  informed  by  others. 

Int.  266.— Were  you  ever  at  Vancouver  during  the  period 
of  high  water  before  the  fall  of  1853  ? 
Ans. — Yes  ;  I  was  there  in  1850. 
Int.  266. — How  long  did  you  stay  there  at  that  time  ? 
Ans. — I  really  don't  recollect ;  I  was  there  probably  more 
than  once. 

Int.  267. — Was  it  at  this  time  you  made  those  scientific  ob- 
Bervations  which  you  detailed  in  your  description  of  Vancou- 
ver with  reference  to  the  freshets  in  the  river  ? 

Ans. — With  regard  to  the  freshets  of  the  Columbia  river, 
I  noticed,  I  presume,  many  of  the  facts  at  that  time,  others  I 
probably  learned  from  other  persons.    In  reference  to  the 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


// 


1/ 


^  A 


^ 


^ 


^.^ 


^ 


4^ 


1.0 


1.1 


11.25 


itt  l&i   §22 
Sf  y£   12.0 


-► 


Fhotograiiitc 

Sdmoes 

Carporation 


^ 


50^ 


o 


<*** 
l^.. 


23  WMT  MAIN  STRUT 

VY<UTIIt,N.Y.  USM 

(71«)l7a-4S03 


'^ 


^\ 


•\ 


462 


periods  of  its  rise  and  fall,  and  temperature  of  the  water,  I 
obtained  particular  data  in  the  summer  of  1854  from  a  person 
whom  I  employed  to  make  observations,  and  whose  register  I 
transmitted  to  Washington,  which  register  was  published  in 
the  reports  of  the  Pacific  Railroad  Survey. 

Int.  268. — What  did  you  hear  was  the  temperature  of  the 
water  in  the  river  ? 

Ans. — The  exact  temperature  you  will  find  in  the  report  as 
printed.  According  to  my  recollection,  however,  it  stood 
during  the  rise  of  the  river  at  a  very  low  point,  gradually 
increasing  in  elevation  with  the  subsidence.  It  was  so  near 
the  freezing  point,  at  any  rate,  that,  according  to  the  farmers, 
wheat  would  not  survive  it. 

Int.  269. — What  have  you  already  before  stated  was  the 
temperature  of  this  river? 

Ans. — I  think  I  stated,  from  my  notes,  it  varied  from  40° 
to  60°. 

Int.  270. — Was  that  the  statement  made  to  you  by  your 
observer  ? 

Ans. — I  believe  it  was ;  but  without  reference  anew  to  his 
report,  I  will  not  be  absolutely  certain. 

Int.  271. — Can  you  not  be  certain  of  this  statement  with- 
out referring  to  his  notes  ? 

Ans. — I  have  already  answered  that  question  according  to 
n^y  recollection. 

Int.  272. — Who  was  the  author  of  the  statement  that  the 
deposit  from  the  river  does  not  tend  to  fertilize  the  ground? 
Ana. — I  was  myself.     It  was  the  result  of  my  observation. 
Int.  273. — In  what  year  did  you  notice  this  deposit,  and 
arrive  at  the  conclusion  you  have  just  given  ? 

An%. — I  really  don't  know  when  I  first  noticed  it.  I  men- 
tioned it  as  early  as  1850-51,  in  a  report  which  I  drew  up  upon 
Oregon  Territory.  The  same  perso'h  who  made  the  observa- 
tions in  1854  collected,  under  my  instructions,  specimens  of 
the  deposit  from  time  to  time  during  the  freshet,  and  an  ex' 
amination  of  these  confirmed  me  in  that  opinion. 

Int.  274. — Have  you  ever  observed  the  hay  crop  upon  the 
land,  immediately  around  Fort  Yancouver,  subject  to  overflow? 


w^ 


463 


AfiB. — ^1  have.  • 

Int.  275. — State  whether  it  is  a  large  or  a  small  crop. 

Ans.-^lt  is  excellent.  The  moisture  remaining  in  the  soil 
after  the  subsidence  of  the  freshet  tends  to  produce  a  good 
crop  of  any  plant  hardy  enough  to  withstand  the  previous 
temperature.     . 

Int.  276.— *Has  your  knowledge  or  observation,  either  as 
geologist  or  farmer,  enabled  you  to  explain  the  phenomenon 
of  a  large  crop  of  grass  upon  a  moistened  deposit  of  sand? 

Ans. — Moisture  will  sustain  vegetation,  as  observation  has 
shown,  in  the  desert  of  Sahara  itself.  Of  course  the  decay  of 
a  portion  of  the  grass  adds  something  to  the  fertility  of  the 
ground. 

Int.t2n. — Is  it  your  scientific  opinion,  derived  from  your 
own  observations  and  that  of  the  other  scientific  observer,  that 
the  deposits  on  the  banks  of  the  Columbia  river,  extending 
inland  a  mile  or  so,  are  deposits  of  sand  ? 

Ans.—^Yes;  and  it  is,  moreover,  my  opinion  that  three  feet 
in  depth  of  it,  without  more  moisture  than  is  to  be  found  on 
the  uplands,  would  be  equally  wanting  in  fertility. 

Int.  278. — What  streams  are  there  back  of  Vancouver,  be- 
tween that  place  and  the  mountains  ? 

Ana. — There  is  a  stream  called  Salmon  creek.  There  are 
also  the  two  forks  of  Gathlapootl  and  their  tributaries.  There 
are,  I  think,  other  small  streams ;  though  I  do  not  now  recol- 
lect them. 

Int.  279.— Into  what  river  does  the  Salmon  creek  flow,  and 
when  did  you  see  it? 

Ans. — It  is  a  number  of  years  since  I  have  seen  it.  My 
impression  is,  it  runs  into  one  of  the  sloughs  or  ponds  below 
Fort  Vancouver.  » 

Int.  280. — Were  you  ever  more  than  a  mile  back  of  Fort 
Vancouver,  except  on  the  road  leading  from  there  to  the 
prairie,  on  which  Mr.  Covington's  claim  was  situated? 

Ans. — I  do  not  now  remember.  I  do  not  think  that  I  ever 
went  off  the  roads,  back,  any  distance  into  the  woods. 

Int.  281. — What  road  did  you  ever  ride  over,  leading  back 
of  Vancouver,  except  the  one  above  mentioned? 
80  H 


4G4      . 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  any  ;  though  there  may  have  Tjecii 
other  roads,  which  I  do  not  now  recall. 

Int.  282. — How  far  up  the  bank  of  the  stream  called  Salmon 
ereek,  from  its  mouth,  have  you  ever  been  ? 

Ans. — Really  I  don't  remember  ;  I  must  have  have  crossed 
it  or  its  outlet  on  my  way  down  the  Columbia,  and  I  think 
that  is  one  of  the  streams  crossed  by  the  road  we  took  to  the 
mountains. 

Int.  283. — Were  you  ever  on  any  part  of  the  banks  of 
Salmon  creek,  except  at  its  outlet? 

Ans. — I  think,  as  I  before  stated,  it  is  one  of  the  streams 
crossed  by  the  trail  we  took  on  our  route. 

Int.  284. — Do  you  know  anything  about  the  stream,  except 
at  its  outlet,  and  where  you  crossed  it  on  your  road  to  the 
mountains? 

Avs. — Only  by  general  observation  of  the  country,  or,  as 
was  probably  the  case  at  the  date  of  my  report,  from  such  in- 
formation as  I  could  obtain  from  others. 

Int.  285. — Have  you  mentioned  in  your  report  anything 
about  the  streams  or  country  back  of  Vancouver,  except  what 
you  have  stated  on  confirmation  from  Governor  Ogden  ? 

Ans. — I  think  that  in  my  report  I  described  the  character 
of  the  country  behind  Fort  Vancouver  as  sterile,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  bottoms  bordering  on  the  streams.  How  far 
Gov.  Ogden  may  have  corroborated  this  statement  I  do  not 
remember.  In  passing  through  it,  I  certainly  observed  it  with 
attention  myself. 

Int.  286. — Did  Gov.  Ogden  ever  say  anything  to  yoti  with 
reference  to  the  country  back  of  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  whether  he  did  or  not. 

Cross-Examination  Resumed  June  26,  1867. 


Int.  287. — Was  not  your  personal  observation  of  the  country 
back  of  Vancouver  confined  to  such  observation  as  you  could 
make  of  it  in  passing  along  the  road  leading  from  there  by 
the  Third  and  Fourth  Plain  and  Mr.  Covington's  house  to  the 
mountains? 


465 

>!»«. — Yes,  it  was,  excepting  that  I  had  visited  Mr.  Coving- 
ton, on  the  Fourth  Phiin,  several  times,  and  perhaps  ridden  out 
on  some  otlier  trail  through  the  woods. 

Int.  288. — Is  there  any  other  trail  or  road  that  you  can 
designate  going  into  the  country  back  of  Vancouver  from  that 
place  ?  . 

Alls. — I  have  a  vague  impression  that  there  is  another  road 
or  trail  to  the  westward  of  that,  but  of  this  I  am  not  certain. 

Int.  28l>. — Have  you  embodied  in  your  description  of  Van- 
couver, ill  your  report,  or  in  your  deposition  in  answer  to  In- 
terrogatory 21,  statements  mi.de  to  you  by  other  persons  than 
Gov.  Ogdcn  ? 

Ann. — In  my  reply  to  that  interrogatory,  I  will  say  that  I 
have  doubtless  embodied  to  a  certain  extent  my  own  observa- 
tions and  impressions,  but  the  substance  was,  so  far  as  I  was 
able  to  give  it,  founded  upon  or  corroborated  by  Mr.  Ogden. 
It  is  utterly  impossible  for  any  one  to  divest  himself  altogether 
of  the  coloring  given  to  any  statement  of  facts  by  his  personal 
observation,  but  I  think  that  substantially  I  have  represented 
Mr.  Ogdcn's  remarks  with  correctness. 

Cioss-Exawination  Resumed^  June  27,  1SG7. 


Int.  289. — Is  there  not  a  portion  of  this  answer  to  Interrog- 
atory 21  derived  from  your  own  observation  alone,  uncorrob- 
orated by  any  statement  of  Mr.  Ogden? 

Ans. — Portions  of  the  answer  undoubtedly  v/oro  derived 
from  my  own  observation  alone.  There  were  other  parts 
concerning  which  my  information  w^as  derived  from  Mr.  Ogden. 

Int.  290. — Did  Mr.  Ogden  tell  you  that  the  village,  which 
you  say  was  of  cabins,  was  occupied  by  servants,  Kanakas,  and 
Indians? 

An». — That  the  chief  population  of  the  village  consisted  of 
such  was  obvious  enough  without  applying  to  him  lur  inform- 
ation on  the  point. 

Int.  291. — Why  did  you  change  the  language  ia  your  re- 
port, in  speaking  of  the  inhabitants  of  i-hese  buildings,  "  were," 
you  say,  "occupied  by  servants.  Kanakas,  and  Indians,"  to 


466 

"occupied  by  a  mongrel  crowd  of  Canadians,  Kanakas,  and 
Indians?" 

Ans. — I  really  do  not  know  that  I  had  any  particular  mo- 
tive, unless  it  was  for  a  clearer  description. 

Int.  292. — Were  all  the  servants  of  the  Company  Canadians? 

Ans. — No;  nor  have  I  said  that  they  were. 

Int.  293. — State  now  who  occupied  this  village  you  have 
spoken  of? 

Ans. — Chiefly  the  servants  of  the  Company. 

Int.  294. — Do  you  wish  your  description  of  the  village  now 
to  be  in  this  form,  a  village  of  fifty  or  sixty  cabins  occupied 
by  the  servants  of  the  Company? 

Ans. — Were  I  to  make  any  correction  in  the  statement  it 
would  be  that,  if  anything,  I  have  overstated  the  number  of 
•cabins. 

Int.  295. — Did  any  Canadians  occupy  this  village  in  1853? 

Ans. — I  think  they  did.     That  is  my  recollection. 

Int.  296. — Why  did  you  not  mention  this  fact  in  your  re- 
port made  about  that  time? 

Ans. — I  do  not  suppose  I  considered  it  a  matter  of  any  con- 
sequence. 

Int.  297. — Is  it  not  a  matter  of  as  much  consequence  if 
Canadians  lived  there  as  if  Kanakas  and  Indians  lived  there? 

Ans. — Chiefly  to  the  Canadians  I  should  think. 

Int.  298. — Why  did  you  make  that  change  in  your  descrip- 
tion of  the  inhabitants  of  the  village  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  any  particular  motive  in  making 
the  change,  nor  do  I  now  consider  it  of  any  importance. 

Int.  299. — Do  you  now  recollect  a  single  Canadian  living  in 
one  of  the  houses  of  that  village;  if  so,  state  what  part  of  the 
village  it  was  in,  the  kind  of  house  he  lived  in,  and  the  time 
at  which  you  saw  him  there? 

Ans. — I  have  described  generally  the  character  of  the  pop- 
ulation of  that  village.  As  to  any  acquaintance  with  them, 
whether  Kanakas,  Canadians,  or  Indians,  I  have  none  indi- 
vidually. 

Int.  300. — Do  you  not  think  your  memory  was  better  of  this 
village  in  1853  and  '54  than  it  is  now  in  1867?    '• 


467 


Ans. — Undoubtedly,  as  to  matters  of  detail. 

Jnt.  301. — Of  what  were  the  buildings  inside  the  stockade, 
and  the  large  store-house  hired  bj  the  United  States  in  1853, 
outside  the  stockade,  built? 

Ans. — All  the  buildings  inside  and  outside  the  stockade 
were  built  of  wood,  though  their  construction  was  not  altogether 
the  same.  • 

Int.  302. — Enumerate  the  buildings  inside  the  stockade  that 
were  built  of  square  logs? 

Ans. — Nearly  all  the  buildings,  according  to  my  recollec- 
tion, were  built  of  square  logs,  or  at  least  had  that  appear- 
ance. There  were,  however,  I  think,  one  or  two  that  were 
framed  and  boarded. 

Int.  303. — Of  what  was  the  Governor's  house  built? 

Ans. — Of  that  I  am  not  positive.  I  think  the  front  alone 
was  clap-boarded. 

Int.  304. — Have  you  not  once  stated  in  the  report  from 
which  you  have  quoted  in  your  deposition,  including  this  house 
with  others  in  a  description,  made  use  of  this  language:  "They 
are  all  built  of  square  logs." 

Ans. — I  have  used  the  words,  but  in  reference  particularly 
to  the  warehouses,  though  most  of  the  other  buildings  were 
constructed  in  the  same  way. 

Int.  305. — Was  the  Governor's  house  built  of  square  logs 
framed  together? 

Ans. — I  have  already  said  I  would  not  be  positive  as  to  the 
construction  of  the  Governor's  house,  but  I  think  that  it  was 
so  tuilt,  and  in  front  covered  with  clap-boards. 

Int.  306. — Were  the  smaller  buildings  used  by  clerks  built 
of  square  logs  framed  together? 

Ans. — Tiiat  I  cannot  say. 

Int.  307. — Was  the  range  of  dwellings  for  families  built  of 
square  logs  framed  together? 

Ans. — I  think  it  was. 

Int.  308. — Is  this  statement  true,  made  by  you  in  your 
report,  or  not:  "Within  are  the  Governor's  house,  two  smaller 
buildings  used  by  clerks,  a  range  of  dwellings  for  families,  and 
five  large  two-story  waaehouses,  besides  offices.   Without  there 


468 


is  another  large  storehouse,  at  present  hired  by  the  United 
States.  These  are  all  built  of  square  logs  framed  togetlier?" 
Arts. — I  have  once  told  you  that  the  words  "they  are  all 
square  logs  so  framed,"  referred,  as  I  think,  more  particularly 
to  the  large  warehouses.  Substantially  the  statement  was  true, 
as  it  was  intended  to  be. 

Int.  309. — If  that  statement  was  substantially  true,  why  did 
you  change  the  language  of  the  report  to  this  form,  in  your 
answer  to  Interrogatory  21:  "Within  were  the  Governor's 
house,  two  smaller  buildings  used  by  clerks,  a  range  of  dwell- 
ings for  families,  and  five  large  two-story  warehouses,  besides 
offices.  Without  there  was  another  large  storehouse,  then 
occupied  by  the  United  States.  They  were  nearly  all  built  of 
square  logs,  framed  together  after  the  fashion  known  as  the 
Canadian  fashion?" 

Ana. — I  do  not  notice  any  difference  between  the  two  state- 
ments, except  the  introduction  of  the  word  "nearly,"  a  quali- 
fication which  might  have  been  suggested  to  my  mind  by  some 
passing  doubt. 

Int.  310. — When  did  you  first  learn  that  the  framed  build- 
ings, in  the  form  these  were  framed,  was  called  the  Canadian 
fashion  ? 

Ans. — Really  I  don't  remember.     The  mode  of  framing  was 
peculiar,  so  far  as  I  recollect,  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 
Int.  311. — Did  you  ever  hear  the  form  of  building  men- 
tioned as  Canadian  until  you  noticed  it  so  described  in  the 
testimony  which  you  had  printed  in  the  case? 

Ans. — I  presume  it  was  as  familiar  to  me  as  it  was  to  other 
witnesses.  The  peculiarity  of  the  buildings  was  a  matter  of 
common  remark. 

Int.  312. — Are  you  now  prepared  to  say  from  your  recol- 
lection that  these  buildings  were  built  of  square  logs  at  all? 
Ans. — I  have  nothing  further  to  state  on  that  subject. 
Int.  313. — Did  you  notice  them  particularly? 
Ans. — I  presume  I  did  at  the  time. 

Int.  314. — Can  you  tell  the  diflFerence  between  squared  logs 
and  sawed  plank  ? 
Ans. — I  presume  so,  if  I  had  been  looking  at  them. 


4C0 


Int.  315. — Wore  these  warehouses  built  of  square  logs  or  of 
tliick  sawn  plank? 

Ans. — I  have  stated  already  on  that  point  all  I  have  to  say, 
and  have  nothing  further  to  add. 

Int.  316. — Describe,  if  you  please,  what  you  mean  by  the 
term  "square  logs,"  of  which  you  say  these  buildings  were 
erected,  the  thickness  of  the  log,  and  whether  squared  by  the 
axe  or  by  the  saw. 

An9. — These  are  details  which  I  do  not  recollect.  By  square 
logs  I  mean  logs  reduced  on  all  four  sides. 

Int.  317. — What  do  you  understand  to  be  meant  by  the  term 
plank,  as  distinpt  from  that  of  square  log? 

Ann. — I  presume  the  distinction  is  simply  one  of  thickness. 

Int.  318. — If  these  ])uildings  were  erected  chiefly  of  lumber, 
and  prepared  at  a  saw-mill  with  the  saw,  would  you  not  now 
consider  your  description  of  that  as  built  of  square  logs  as 
inaccurate? 

Ans. — Not  necessarily,  for  logs  may  be  squared  at  tlie  saw- 
mill. 

Int.  319. — Of  what  were  two  smaller  buildings,  used  by 
clerks  inside  the  stockade,  built? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  further  than  I  have  already  stated. 

Int.  320. — Have  you  stated  anything  in  reference  to  what 
they  were  built  of  in  tliis  deposition? 

Ans. — I  tliink  not  with  particularity^ 

Int.  321. — Can  you  now  state  of  what  they  were  built? 

Ans. — Not  with  absolute  confidence. 

Int.  322. — Is  there  any  tlifference  between  houses  built  in 
the  Canadian  fashion  and  those  that  are  called  rabbet-luilt 
houses? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  to  what  stylo  of  house  you  refer  by 
rabbet-built  houses  ;  nor  do  I  remember  anj  others  built  after 
this  Canadian  fashion. 

Int.  323. — How  many  years  do  you  refer  to  in  this  expres- 
sion, in  speaking  of  repairs,  when  you  say  "  Only  the  repairs 
necessary  to  keep  them  in  tenantable  order,  having  been  fox 
some  years  expended?" 

Ans. — From  the  date  of  the  treaty. 


4Ta 


Int.  324.— Up  to  what  time  ? 

Ans. — Up  to  the  time  of  the  report. 

Int.  325. — Was  it  so  intended  in  the  answer  to  Interroga- 
tory 21  ? 

An%. — In  the  answer  to  that  interrogatory  the  date  of  the 
report  seems  to  have  heen  in  view. 

Int.  326. — Is  that  statement  the  result  of  your  own  personal 
observation,  or  is  it  derived  from  others  ? 

Ans. — I  presume  that  both  sources  of  information  were  used. 

Int.  327. — Who  told  you  that  from  the  date  of  the  treaty 
that  only  such  repairs  had  been  expended  1 

An». — I  don't  remember  any  one  in  partftjular.  I  don't 
know  that  any  one  made  the  statement  in  so  many  words.  It 
is,  however,  a  conviction  that  I  had  formed. 

Int.  328. — IIow  long,  did  you  remain  at  Vancouver  after 
your  arrival  there  in  1849  before  you  went  to  Astoria  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  p  not  long.     It  was  a  nvere  cursory  visit. 

Int.  329. — Up  to  what  date  do  you  wish  to  be  understood  as 
stating  that  your  knowledge  of  the  trade  of  the  Company  at 
Vancouver  extended,  you  having  spoken  of  it  from  1849  on- 
ward? 

Ans. — In  reply  to  tliat  question,  my  knowledge,  from  per- 
sonal observation,  extended  of  course  only  through,  the  period 
of  my  visits  to  the  place,  which  were  scattered  over  several 
years,  and  were  more  frequent  while  I  was  connected  with  the- 
custom-house.  In  a  small  comjmunity,  such  as  Oregon  was  at 
that  time,  the  affairs  of  the  Company  w'ere  necessarily,  to  a 
certain  extent,  known  by  every  one-. 

Int.  330. — What  perixxl  of  time,  then,  do  you  wish  to- include 
in  the  language  "from  1849  onward""  in  your  answer  to  Inter- 
rogatory 23? 

Ans. — To  the  time  of  my  leaving  the  country  in  1860-61. 

Int.  331. — Will  you  say  you  were  acquainted  with  the  trade 
of  the  Company  at  Vancouver  after  the  time  you  jained  the 
Boundary  Commission  in  1857  ? 

Ans. — After  I  joined  the  Boundary  Commission  I  was  at 
the  post  at  Victoria,  those  on  Fraser  river,  and  the  Upper  Col- 
umbia.    I  saw  what  was  transacted  there,,  and  by  impressions 


»n  I  was  at 


471 

dcrive<l  at  those  places,  as  also  from  conversation  with  those 
irho  visited  Vancouver,  came  to  the  conclusion  I  have  above 
stp'cd. 

i  Y.  332. — After  you  went  to  Puget's  Sound  in  the  winter 
of  1853,  how  many  times  did  you  visit  Vancouver  before  join- 
the  Boundary  Commission  ? 

An8. — Several  times. 

Int.  333. — State  the  numborof  times  and  the  months  in  the 
year  you  visited  there. 

Ans, — The  longest  time  that  I  was  there  was  in  the  fall  and 
winter  of  1855.  As  to  the  dates  of  other  visits  that  I  made 
there,  I  could  not  give  them  without  reference  to  note-books. 
At  the  time  I  speak  of  I  was  engaged  in  surveying  and  making 
a  map  of  the  route  from  Vancouver  to  Stcilacoom. 

Int.  334. — ^Do  you  personally  know,  other  than  from  general 
reputation  and  hearsay,  what  trade  was  carried  on  at  Van- 
couver ? 

An». — To  a  great  extent  I  do,  Just  as  one  knows  the  char- 
scter  of  trade  cari*ied  on  by  a  merchant  elsewhere. 

Int.  335. — In  this  answer  as  to  the  character  of  the  trade, 
do  you  mean  the  character  of  the  goods  that  be  sells,  or  the 
class  of  customers  who  purchase  from  him? 

Ans. — Both ;  the  number  of  Indians  in  the  country  having 
diminished  to  so  great  an  extent  as  no  longer  to  afford  scope 
for  an  extensive  trade  with  them. 

Int.  336. — Were  you  often  in  the  sale  room  inside  the  stock- 
ade? 

Ans. — Yes;  I  have  frequently  made  purchases  there. 

Int.  337. — Were  you  often  enough  inside  of  the  store  from 
1849  to  1861,  and  so  observed  the  people  trading  there,  as  to 
enable  you  to  say,  from  personal  observation,  with  whom  the 
trade  of  the  Company  at  Vancouver  during  all  that  length  of 
time  was  car^'ied  on  ? 

Ans. — My  knowledge  of  the  trade  of  the  Company  was  in 
part  derived  also  from  its  agents  elsewhere,  as  in  Portland 
and  Oregon  City,  from  the  merchants  and  others  with  whom 
they  traded,  and  from  invoices  of  the  goods  they  imported  ? 


472 

Jnt.  3.^8. — What  officer  of  the  Company  wns  ever  btatiuiiCil 
at  Portland? 

An». — I  don't  know  tliat  any  officer  of  tlio  Coinpiiny  was 
ever  stationed  at  Portland.  Mr.  William  S.  Of^den  at  one 
time  acted  as  their  agent  there,  or  sold  goods  for  thfni. 

Int.  330. — Did  Mr.  Ogden  tell  you  bo,  or  ia  that  an  im- 
pression of  your  ip'.nd? 

Ans. — I  am  coi.vinced  from  the  goods  that  he  had  fur  sale 
there,  as  well  as  from  my  recollection  of  conversations  with 
him,  that  such  was  the  case. 

Int,  340. — Where  did  you  stay  when  at  your  first  visit  to 
Vancouver  in  1840? 

Ans. — I  don't  know.  I  don't  remember  more  about  the 
visit  than  the  fact  of  going  there  and  callitig  upon  Mr.  Ogdoii, 

Int.  341. — State  the  time,  if  any,  during  your  visits  to  Van- 
couver, that  you  resided  inside  the  stockade? 

Ana. — I  never  did  reside  there. 

Int.  342. — Did  you  not,  at  all  your  visits  to  Vancouver,  oc- 
cupy quarters  at  the  military  post? 

Ana. — Always  there,  or  in  its  neighborhood. 

Cro88-Exani{nation  Resumed,  June  28,  1807. 

Int.  b43. — State  how  ■  any  times  you  were  at  Vancouver  iu 
the  year  1850? 

Ans. — That  I  am  unable  to  state.  I  went  up  and  down  the 
river  several  times,  usually  stoj)ping  at  Vancouver  on  these 
occasions. 

Int.  344. — AVhat  was  the  longest  time  you  were  ut  Van- 
couver on  any  one  of  these  occasions? 

Ans. — I  don't  know.     I  suppose  a  Aveek  or  two. 

Int.  345. — Were  you  not  this  year  deputy  collector  at  As- 
toria and  agent  for  the  pilots? 

Ans. — I  was. 

Int.  34G. — State  in  what  month  of  the  year  1850  you  spent 
a  week  at  Vancouver,  what  business  took  you  there,  if  any, 
and  where  you  stopped  while  there? 

Ans. — I  cannot  state  specifically  any  of  tliose  details,  ex- 


473 


Di'  statiuiic<l 


first  visit  to 


iricouvcr,  oc- 


ccpt  that  wlicii  at  Vancouver  I  stoppcil  at  the  (luartors  of  some 
one  or  other  ollicer,  aii(l  that  I  soiiu'titues  went  tiiore  on  the 
ciistoni-hoiise  business  and  sometimes  for  my  own  anniscment. 
I  had  no  reason  to  keep  a  record  of  excursions  up  and  down 
the  river,  except  so  far  as  the  business  of  the  office  required. 
It  wouM  now  bo  a  difficult  thing,  oven  if  practicable,  forme  to 
furnish  such  details. 

Jnt.  347. — Can  you  now  recollect  any  particulai  visit  to 
Vancouver  during  the  year  18.jO,  which  is  brought  to  your 
recollection  by  any  particular  incident  that  occurred  during  it? 

Ans. — I  recollect  going  up  on  the  first  trip  of  the  little 
steamer  Columbia. 

Lit.  348, — What  month  of  the  year  1850  wu  :liat,  and  how 
loiig  did  you  remaiji  there? 

Ans. — I  do  not  recollect  what  month  it  wa.*,  or  how  long  I 
remained.  An  inquiry  into  details  of  that  '  scrij)iion  is  i)er- 
fectly  idle.  Those  things,  which  arc  matters  of  litvjuent  oc- 
currence, uro  rarely  fixed  in  my  memory  evi  n  tur  shorter 
:iriods,  although  the  general  impressions  produced  may  bo 
lasting. 

Int.  349. — Was  the  first  trip  of  tho  first  steamer  that  was  to 
run  from  Astoria  up  the  river  of  so  little  importance  that  you 
cannot  recollect  in  what  month  it  took  place? 

Ans. — Tho  event  itself  was  of  sufficient  importance  to  re- 
member. The  particular  mouth  was  not  of  sufficient  conse- 
quence. 

Int.  350. — Does  not  your  name  appear  on  the  register  as 
one  of  tho  owners  or  stockholders  of  that  steamer  ? 

Ans. — I  have  explained  that  matter  fully,  in  writing  at  the 
end  of  my  direct  examination.  I  do  not  remember  whether 
my  name  was  on  the  register  or  not,  nor  do  I  now  remember 
whether  the  vessel  was  registered  or  merely  licensed. 

Int.  351. — Was  not  this  the  only  steamer  Avhich  plied  on  the 
Columbia  river  during  your  term  of  service  as  deputy  collector, 
or  which  had  either  license  or  register  from  the  custom-house 
at  Astoria  ? 

Ans. — I  think  that  the  Lot  Whitecomb  was  likewise  built 
and  registered,  or  licensed  during  that  period. 


474 


Int.  352. — Who  had  charge  of  the  books  at  the  custom- 
houio? 

Ans. — I  had ;  of  course,  under  the  supervision  of  the  Col- 
lector. 

Int.  353. — Can  you  not  now  recollect  whether  these  two 
steamers  sailed  under  a  register  or  a  license? 

Ans. — It  is  so  long  since  I  have  had  anything  to  do  with 
custom-house  business,  or  the  revenue  laws,  that  I  cannot  an- 
swer with  any  certainty.  My  impression  is  that  registration 
is  necessary  in  the  first  place,  and  that  where  the  trade  is  con- 
fined to  home  navigation  a  license  is  taken  instead,  for  the 
purpose  of  saving  forms  and  the  expense. 

Int.  354. — How  long  after  you  took  office  as  deputy  collector 
Avas  it  before  the  steamer  Columbia  made  her  first  trip  on  the 
river? 

Ans. — It  must  have  been  some  months,  as  Mr.  Frost,  her 
principal  projector,  had  to  go  down  to  San  Francisco  to  bring 
up  the  machinery  and  the  mechanics  Avho  built  her. 

Int.  355. — Did  you  go  to  Vancouver,  in  the  year  1850,  be- 
fore the  first  trip  of  this  steamer  ;  and,  if  so,  how  did  you  go? 

Ans. — I  think  I  went  up  once,  if  not  twice,  in  a  canoe,  and  I 
believe  also  in  a  whale-boat,  for  I  remember  bringing  down 
army  officers,  who  had  business  at  the  mouth  of  the  river. 

Int.  350. — How  many  times  afterwards,  in  the  year  1850, 
did  you  go  to  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — It  is  more  than  I  can  say.  I  think  I  went  up  on  a 
subsequent  trip  with  General  Persifer  S.  Smith  and  the  officers 
of  his  staff,  and  I  believe  on  other  occasions. 

Int.  357. — On  which  of  these  occasions  did  you  stay  one 
week  at  Vancouver? 

Ans. — Very  likely  on  more  than  one  trip. 

Int.  358. — Were  you  in  the  store  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany at  A'^ancouver  on  all  these  visits  you  made  there  ? 

Ans. — It  is  utterly  impossible  for  me  to  say  more  than  that 
I  was  in  the  habit  of  going  there. 

Int.  359. — Can  you  recollect  distinctly  any  time,  during 
these  visits  at  Vancouver,  when  you  were  inside  the  sales-store 


475 


f  the  river. 


(1  you  stay  one 


of  the  IIuJsou's  Bay  Company,  ami  can  state  who  you  saw 
within  the  store,  either  as  purchasers  or  visitors? 

^w*t.— I  cannot,  I  presutnel  was  in  there  both  with  officera 
of  the  army  and  witli  citizens,  hut,  after  such  a  lap^e  of  time, 
I  would  not  pretend  to  recollect  a  matter  of  no  moment  in 
itself. 

Int.  3G0. — Can  you  designate  any  time,  at  your  visits  to 
Vancouver,  prior  to  your  going  toPuget's  Sound,  in  which  you 
can  say  who  was  inside  the  sales-store  at  Fort  Vancouver  with 
you,  either  as  visitors  or  purchasers? 

Ans. — I  remember  purchasing  some  goods  for  Capt.  McClel- 
Inn,  in  1853,  at  which  time  ArchibaM  McKinlay,  the  son-iti-law 
of  Mr.  Ogden,  and  Robert  Newell,  of  Champoeg,  assisted  me 
in  their  selection. 

Int.  361. — On  this  or  any  other  occasion,  prior  to  the  time 
mentioned,  can  you  remember  that  you  saw  any  one,  besides 
yourself  and  those  assisting  you,  purchasing  goods  at  this 
sales-store  ? 

Ans. — No  one  in  particular. 

Int.  362. — What  goods,  and  at  what  date,  and  by  what  ves- 
sel of  the  Company  did  you  see  shipped  to  San  Francisco  ? 

Ans. — Without  referring  to  the  custom-house  records,  to 
which  I  have  not  access  at  present,  I  could  not  answer  that 
question  definitively,  and  of  my  own  personal  observation, 
but  I  remember  a  purchase  reported  to  have  been  made  of  a 
large  lot  of  coffee,  from  Gov.  Ogden,  by  a  merchant,  who  rode 
over  from  Portland  before  the  news  of  the  steamer's  arrival 
was  received  at  Vancouver,  at  several  cents  a  pound  less  than 
it  was  worth  at  San  Francisco. 

(The  whole  of  that  portion  of  the  answer  founded  on  report 
objected  to  as  irrelevant  and  incompetent.) 

Int.  363. — How  many  Indian  goods  of  the  Company  did 
you  see  6ent  to  Victoria? 

Ans. — All  those  matters  will  appear  by  the  records  of  the 
custom-house.  I  only  remember  they  were  sent  in  quantities 
to  Victoria,  and  also  to  Nisqually.  My  recollection  of  the 
goods  being  stjut  to  Nisqually  is  the  more  distinct,  as  a  vessel 
carrying  some  of  them  was  seiaed  for  smuggling  by  the  Col- 


476 


lector's  orders,  and  subsequently  released  on  an  arranfifoinout 
with  Gov.  Douglas  to  make  regular  returns  and  pay  the  tluties 
on  goods  shipped  to  the  Sound.  This  was  before  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  port  of  entry  there. 

Jnt.  ;3(t4. — Were  these  goods  shipped,  that  you  refer  to 
during  your  tenn  of  service  as  deputy  collector  or  durincj  your 
term  as  collector? 

Ans. — Daring  the  term  of  my  service  as  deputy  collector. 

Int.  3().j. — State  the  names  of  vessels  by  which  they  were 
shipped,  and,  if  you  can,  the  (i[uantitics  of  goods. 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  the  name  of  the  vessel,  ily 
recollection  of  the  occurrence  is  this,  that  she  was  the  annual 
ship  from  London,  that  she  discharged  only  a  part  of  her  carfQ 
at  Fort  Vancouver,  and  took  the  rest  round  to  Victoria,  from 
whence  a  portion  of  them  were  sent  to  Nisqually. 

Int.  3(JG. — Were  these  goods  shipped  from  England  to  Vic- 
toria or  from  Vancouver? 

Ans. — I  understood  them  to  be  goods  which  were  not  sale- 
able in  Oregon,  in  consequence  of  the  falling  off  of  the  Indian 
trade,  and  they  were  sent,  on  their  arrival  from  England, 
round  to  Victoria. 

Int.  307. — Were  you  at  Vancouver  at  the  time  or  nt  Astoria? 

Ans. — If  I  recollect  aright,  I  went  up  to  Vancouver  to 
receive  the  vessel  to  entry  there. 

Int.  3GH. — Was  the  whole  cargo  of  this  vessel  entered  at 
the  custom-house  at  Astoria? 

Ans. — Of  course  only  such  portions  as  were  landed  there. 

Int.  30'.). — Where  was  the  entry  of  these  goods  made,  at  the 
custom-house  or  not  ? 

A71S. — Owing  to  the  condition  of  the  country  at  the  time, 
vessels  were  permitted  to  proceed  up  the  river  at  once,  on 
depositing  the  necessary  papers  with  the  collector,  and  all  the 
formalities  Averc  afterwards  completed  at  Vancouver  or  Port- 
land, as  it  might  be,  and  the  returns  made  to  the  office. 

Int.  370. — IIow  do  you  know  that  the  goods  taken  round  to 
Victoria  by  the  annual  ship  were  not  originally  intended  for 
that  port,  they  not  having  been  entered  in  the  district  of  As- 
toria? 


477 


lanJ  to  Vic- 


•  Ans. — That  was  of  course  a  matter  of  informatiun.  The 
change  in  the  condition  of  the  country,  owing  to  the  discovery 
of  gold  in  California  and  the  flocking  in  of  settlers,  the  dimi- 
nution of  the  number  of  Indians  from  disease,  and  the  conse- 
quent change  in  the  trade,  was  a  subject  of  common  discussion. 

Itit.  oil. — Were  not  the  invoices  of  tlic  cargo  exhibited  to 
you  either  at  Astoria  or  Vancouver? 

Ans. — I  suppose  the  invoices  of  all  the  goods  unloaded  at 
Vancouver  were  of  course  exhibited  to  me. 

Lit.  372. — Who  told  you  that  the  goods  sent  to  Victoria 
were  unsaleable  in  Oregon?  If  an  olHctr  of  the  Company, 
give  his  name,  and  the  language  he  made  use  of  in  giving  the 
statement. 

An.^. — It  is  utterly  impossible  for  me  to  do  that.  It  was  a 
matter  of  general  understanding  at  the  time. 

(All  statements  made  on  general  understanding  objected  to.) 

Int.  373. — Were  you  in  Astoria  when  goods  you  say  were 
shipped  by  the  annual  ship  were  so  shipped? 

An-'i. — I  do  not  know. 

L)t.  374. — What  was  the  name  of  the  vessel  you  say  was 
seized  for  violation  of  the  revenue  law  ai»d  carrying  goods  to 
Nisqually  ? 

Aps. — I  think  either  the  Prince  of  Wales  or  the  Cadboro. 

Int.  375. — What  was  the  name  of  the  officer  employed  in 
making  the  seizure? 

An.s. — I  believe  Captain  Bennett  II.  Hill,  commanding  at 
Fort  Stcilacoom. 


Cross-Examination  Resumed,  July  1,  18G7. 


Int.  376. — State  what  time  the  Prince  of  Wales  left  the 
river  for  Puget's  Sound,  and  whether  that  was  not  the  vessel 
you  refused  to  allow  to  take  freight  up  the  river  for  Judge 
Strong. 

Ans. — The  Prince  of  Wales  was  the  vessel  I  refused  to  let 
take  freight  up  the  river  for  Judge  Strong.  As  to  the  time 
when  she  left  the  river,  I  don't  remember. 

Int.  377. — Did  the  Prince  of  Wales  ever,  to  your  knowledge, 


4T8 


while  you  were  connected  with  the  custom-house,  leave  tlie 
river  for  any  port  or  harbor? 

Alls. — I  think  the  Prince  of  Wales,  during  the  time  I  was 
connected  with  the  custoui'liouse,  was  in  and  .out  of  the  river 
more  than  once. 

Int.  378. — Did  she  ever  clear  for  Victoria  or  Puget*s  Sound 
"while  you  were  connected  with  the  custom-house? 

An«. — I  cannot  say  without  reference  to  the  records  of  the 
office,  which,  I  suppose,  can  be  found  either  at  Astoria  or  at 
the  Department  of  the  Treasury;  but  I  think  that  she  m-cnU 
trips  from  time  to  time  outside  the  river. 

Jnt.  379.— For  what  place  did  she  sail  at  either  of  those 
times  you  have  mentioned? 

An^. — In  the  first  place,  I  have  never  stated  positively  that 
she  was  in  or  out  of  the  river,  but  simply  that  my  recollection 
is,  that  she  from  time  to  time  made  trips  outside  or  to  other 
places.  Without  reference  to  the  records  kept  at  the  time,  it 
Would  be  almost  impossible  for  me  to  name  any  vessel  of  the 
number  that  traded  there  that  came  from  or  went  to  any  par* 
ticular  place. 

Int.  S80» — What  was  the  tonnage  of  the  Prince  of  Wales,  as 
near  as  you  can  give  It,  and  how  was  she  rigged? 

Ans. — She  was  a  small  vessel,  her  tonnage  I  do  not  remem- 
ber. I  should  say,  at  a  guess>  probably  125  or  150  tons.  As 
to  her  rig,  it  was  indescribable. 

Int.  381.— AVas  Captain  Hill  an  inspector  of  customs  at  the 
time  of  the  seizure  you  have  spoken  of? 

Ans. — Captain  Hill  was  an  officer  of  the  United  States  Army 
in  command  of  the  post  at  Steilacoom,  on  Puget's  Sound,  and 
as  such  w^as  called  upon  by  the  Collector  oT  the  District  of 
Oregon  to  enforce  the  laws  of  the  United  States* 

Int.  382. — Is  not  all  you  know  about  the  seizure  of  theves* 
sel,  and  Captain  Hill's  connection  with  it,  from  mere  report. 

Ans. — I  think  it  is  from  memory,  and  having  been  within 
my  official  knowledge  at  the  time. 

Int.  683.— Did  Captain  Hill  make  a  written  report ;  and,  if 
he  did,  did  you  see  it  ? 

^n».~-That  is  more  than  I  can  state  positively  at  this  time> 


thcr  of  those 


ustoms  at  the 


479 

Int.  384. — Can  you  not  remember  that  the  seizure  of  the 
vessel  by  Captain  Hill  was  made  by  him  upon  a  charge  that  a 
deserter  or  deserters  were  harbored  on  board  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  such  recollection  whatever.  On  the  con- 
trary, according  to  my  recollection,  the  vessel  was  seized  for 
smuggling  goods  into  American  waters. 

Int.  385. — Can  you  tell  whether  Captain  Hill  reported  the 
seizure  to  the  custom-house  first,  or  whether  the  orders  went 
from  the  custom-house  to  Captain  Hill  to  seize  the  vessel? 

Ans. — No,  I  cannot;  but  I  think  the  request  went  from  the 
custom-house  to  him. 

Int.  386. — Who  carried  the  request  from  the  custom-house 
to  him,  and  what  officer  of  the  custom-house  went  over  at  the 
time  to  take  charge  of  the  vessel  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  who  carried  the  request  to  Captain 
Hill.  I  think,  however,  that  Captain  Hill  was  requested  by 
General  Adair  to  stop  the  vessel  in  consequence  of  informa- 
tion received  at  Astoria  that  goods  were  .brought  to  Nisqually 
for  trade  there  which  had  not  paid  duties  at  Astoria,  which 
was  then  the  only  collection  district  in  Oregon.  The  custom- 
house could  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  arresting  a  vessel  for 
harboring  deserters.  I  don't  remember  that  any  officer  of  the 
custom-house  went  over  on  that  occasion,  but  I  think  that 
General  Adair  had  commissioned  a  gentleman  who  was  on  the 
Sound  to  act  as  a  temporary  inspector. 

Int.  387. — Who  was  that  gentleman  ? 

Ans. — A  Mr.  Dorr  was  commissioned  on  one  occasion,  but 
whether  he  was  there  at  the  time  of  this  seizure  I  cannot  say 
now. 

Int.  388. — Was  Dorr  ever  at  Astoria  while  you  were  con- 
nected with  the  custom-house? 

Ans, — He  was. 

Int.  389. — What  time  did  he  arrive  there  from  San  Fran- 
cisco? 

Ans. — Some  time  in  1850,  according  to  my  recollection.  He 
arrived  in  the  tame  vessel  with  the  United  States  District  At- 
torney, Mr.  Holbrook. 

Int.  390. — Was  he  not  sent  over  to  Puget's  Sound  at  the 
31  H 


480 


time  of  the  seizure  of  a  vessel  called  the  Albion  not  bclonffinff 
to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — He  was. 

Int.  391. — Did  that  seizure  take  place  during  the  time  of 
your  connection  with  the  custom-house  ? 

Ans. — It  did. 

Int.  392. — What  month  of  the  year  did  this  seizure  take 
place,  and  what  year  ? 

Ans. — It  took  place  in  1850,  and  I  think  in  the  spring  or 
summer  of  that  year. 

Int.  393. — How  long  did  Dorr  remain  on  the  Sound  ? 

Ans. — That  is  more  than  I  now  remember. 

Int.  394. — When  did  the  annual  ship  arrive  at  Vancouver 
in  the  year  1850  ? 

Ans. — That  is  more  than  I  can  tell,  without  reference  to 
papers  to  which  at  present  I  have  not  access.  I  thjnk  it  was 
in  the  summer. 

Int.  395. — Were  the  goods  that  were  sent  round  to  Victoria 
from  Vancouver  by  the  annual  ship  invoiced? 

Ans. — I  presume  they  were. 

Int.  396. — Have  you  not  stated  that  the  annual  ship  took 
round  the  goods  from  England  that  were  not  landed  at  Van- 
couver ? 

Ans. — My  recollection  is,  that  the  annual  ship  brought  out 
goods  consigned  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  upon  portion 
of  which  only  duties  were  paid,  the  remainder  being  taken  to 
Victoria,  within  the  British  dominions. 

Jnt.  397. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  any  portion  of  the 
goods  invoiced  in  England  as  shipped  to  the  district  of  Asto- 
ria, are  allowed  to  proceed  to  Victoria  without  having  duties 
collected  on  them  within  the  district  to  which  they  were  in- 
voiced as  being  shipped? 

Ans. — Owing  to  the  condition  of  the  country  at  the  time,  a 
very  large  latitude  was  allowed  to  all  vessels  from  foreign 
ports  arriving  there — the  technicalities  of  the  custom-house 
not  being  enforced  as  rigidly  as  they  would  have  been  in  At- 
lantic ports.  I  will  not  pretend  to  state  from  memory  only,  and 
at  this  distance  of  time,  that  the  goods  taken  to  Victoria  were 


481 


the  time  of 


lI  to  Victoria 


Victoria  were 


originally  invoiced  to  Vancouver,  but  that  such  was  my  im- 
pression. 

Int.  398. — Can  you  tell  whether  the  vessel  you  think  was 
seized  on  the  Sound  was  the  Prince  of  Wales,  the  Cadboro,  or 
the  Mary  Dare  ? 

Ans. — I  really  don't  know. 

Int.  399.— -From  1849,  when  you  first  went  into  the  country, 
onward,  did  you  ever  see  a  single  package  of  furs  brought 
irom  Colvile  and  the  other  upper  posts  to  Vancouver  for  ex- 
portation ?  If  so,  state  what  year  it  was  in,  what  month  in 
the  year,  and  the  person  in  charge  of  the  furs. 

Ans. — Yes.  Gov.  Ogden  once  took  me  up  into  the  packing- 
room  at  Fort  Vancouver  and  showed  me  the  collection  of  furs, 
so  far  as  they  were  exposed.  I  think  this  must  have  been  in  the 
summer  of  the  year  1850,  because  I  recollect  that  it  was  to 
me  at  the  time  a  curiosity.  That  is  the  only  time  I  recollect 
seeing  the  furs  at  Vancouver.  I  have  seen  the  furs  of  the 
Company  elsewhere,  at  othjr  times. 

Int.  400.-— Was  not  this  Interrogatory  23  in  the  form  it  now 
is,  "What  trade  was  carried  on  at  Vancouver,  and  with 
whom,"  and  the  answer  written  out  by  yourself? 

Ans. — It  was  dictated  by  me. 

Int.  401. — At  what  time  was  it  that  Gov.  ©gden  sent  out  to 
purchase  horses  from  the  Indians? 

Ans. — Our  horses  were  supplied  in  July,  1853. 

Int.  402. — Was  not  this  Interrogatory  24,  "  What  do  you 
know  of  cattle  and  horses  at  Fort  Vancouver  and  their  alleged 
destruction  by  settlers,"  dictated  and  propounded  by  you? 

Ans. — I  informed  the  counsel  for  the  United  States  in  this 
case,  at  his  request,  witl;  regard  to  the  various  matters  I  was 
able  to  testify,  and  to  save  trouble  wrote  out  several  interrog- 
atories relating  more  particularly  to  general  matters,  being 
the  concluding  interrogatories  of  my  direct  examination,  of 
which  I  think  this  was  one. 

Int.  403.  —Is  not  this  question  another,  "  What  was  the  value 
ai  Fort  Vancouver  as  a  town  site?" 

Ans. — I  think  it  was. 

Int.  404. — Cannot  the  residents  on  the  Columbia  river  save 


482 

in  distance  by  goingf  to  Vancouver,  instead  of  passing  up  the 
Willamette  river  to  Portland  ? 

Ans. — The  distance  from  the  mouth  of  the  Willamette  to 
Vancouver,  and  thence  to  Portlaritr  by  land,  is  about  the  same 
as  the  distance  from  the  mouth  of  the  Willamette  to  Portland 
by  the  latter  ^iver. 

Cro88-Examination  resumed  July  2,  1867. 


Int.  405. — How  far  from  the  edge  of  the  woods  behind  the 
fort,  in  any  direction,  had  "the  forest  behind  been  deadened 
by  the  fires  which  struck  through  it?"   " 

Ans. — But  a  short  distance.  Entering  the  forest,  on  our 
.way  out  from  Fo?t  Vancouver,  my  attention  was  called  to  the 
fact  that  it  had  been  deadened  by  fire,  and  I  inquired  of  Mr, 
Lewes,  the  interpreter  furnished  us  by  Gov.  Ogden,  himself  a 
gentleman  who  then  was,  or  had  been,  in  the  service  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  over  how  great  a  district  of  country 
this  fire  had  passed.  He  told  me  that  there  had  been  two  fires 
which  had  run  through  it,  one  of  which,  if  I  remember  right, 
had  extended  from  the  Cascade  mountains  nearly  to  the  coast, 
and  had  endangered  the  fort  itself. 

(The  latter  part  of  the  answer  objected  to,  as  not  responsive 
to  the  question,  and  the  statements  of  Mr.  Lewes  as  hearsay 
and  incompetent.) 

Int.  40G. — Back  of  what  portion  of  the  Fort  Plain  was  this 
'deadening  of  the  forest  on  its  edge;  how  large  a  space  did  it 
occupy  on  the  edge ;  and  at  what  period  of  time  did  you  first 
notice  it? 

Ans. — The  only  answer  I  can  give  to  that  is,  that  I  first 
noticed  it  during  the  McClellan  expedition,  and  that  we  passed 
through  a  very  extensive  tract  of  deadened  forest,  travelling 
nortwestward  from  Fort  Vancouver,  and  subsequently,  in  1855, 
I  found  Mr.  Lewes's  statement  corroborated  by  the  condition 
of  the  forest  between  Fort  Vancouver  and  northward  towards 
the  Cowlitz  river. 

Int4  407. — -Is  not  the  edge  of  this  forest  directly  behind  the 


483 


■military  post  at  Vancouver,  where  you   generally  stopped 
during  your  visits  to  Vancouver? 

Ans. — Yes  ;  it  is  within  two  or  three  hundred  yards. 

Jnt.  408. — Is  not  the  road  which  you  speak  of  that  which 
you  travelled  on  during  the  McClellan  expedition,  the  one 
leading  from  the  fort  to  the  mountains  ? 

Ana  — The  one  whicii  I  first  spoke  of,  is. 

Int.  409. — How  far  to  the  east  side  of  the  road  could  you 
•see  the  forest  was  deadened  ? 

Ans. — No  further  than  one  could  see  through  dead  timber. 

Jnt.  410. — Did  not  the  military  road,  in  the  survey  of  which, 
in  1855,  you  noticed*  timber  along  the  Columbia,  from  Van- 
couver to  Cowlitz,  run  along  the  edge  of  the  highlands,  directly 
tack  of  the  alluvial  lands  of  the  Columbia  river  bottom? 

Ans. — There  was  no  military  road  whatever.  The  survey 
Tfas  made  for  the  purpose  of  locating  a  military  road,  and  the 
first  line  travelled  was  entirely  through  the  alluvial  lands  of 
the  Columbia  river.  In  consequence  of  the  obstacles  which 
•existed,  I  recommended  the  establishment  of  the  road  upon 
the  timbered  table  land. 

Int.  411. — Did  not  the  proposed  route  of  this  military  road, 
■AS  shown  on  the  map  to  have  been  surveyed  by  Lieut.  Derby, 
-assisted  by  George  Gibbs,  C.  E.,  run  in  the  manner  directed 
in  the  |)revious  interrogatory^ 

Ans. — The  line  as  proposed  ran  along  the  highlands,  and 
<within  a  short  distance  of  the  alluvial  lands,  but  back  of  the 
same. 

Int.  412. — Did  not  Mr.  Lewes  make  his  statement  to  you  in 
this  form,  that  the  timber  had  been  deadened  hy  fires  on  a 
portion  of  the  hills  back  from  the  Columbia  river,  and  going 
'down  the  river  towards  the  Cathlapootl? 

Ans. — The  statement  made  by  Mr.  Lewes  to  me,  which  I 
wrote  down  at  the  time,  was  as  follows,  and  I  am  now  reading 
from  ray  note-book :  "  Lewes  says  that  there  have  been  two 
rgreat  fires  in  these  forests ;  one,  in  1844,  commenced  on  the 
'Columbia  river,  at  the  Cascades,  and  swept  down,  taking  in  a 
tract  as  far  down  as  the  Fourth  Plain — Fort  Vancouver  itself 
3)eing  saved  with  great  difficulty ;  thcncxj  down  to  the  Cowlitz, 


484 

and,  turning  up  that  river,  crossed  it,  and  ran  to  Shoalwatcr 
bay.  The  other  took  somewhere  on  Wiltkwu,  (the  south  fork 
o£  the  Cathlapootl,)  from  a  fire  left  by  an  old  Indian  doctor, 
and,  crossing,  it  went  down  to  Vancouver  again  in  one  direc- 
tion, down  the  Cathlapootl  in  another,  and  again  to  the  Cow- 
litz." 

Int.  413. — Standing  on  the  Fort  Plain,  and  looking  at  the 
forest  which  runs  along  back  of  it,  is  there  a  single  spot  visible 
in  that  line  of  trees  which  appears  to  have  been  deadened  by 
fire? 

Ans. — I  can  better  answer  that  questfon  by  reference  to 
the  same  note-book  than  I  could  from  memory,  as  I  really 
do  not  at  this  moment  recollect  whether  the  trees  on  the  edge- 
of  the  forest  were  deadened  or  not.  I  find  on  the  date  of 
July  15, 1853,  the  fallowing  in  regard  to  the  timber :  "Timber 
near  the  fort^  like  that  between  Switzler'^s  and  the  Willamette, 
small,  indicating  a  recent  or  secondary  growth ;  character,, 
however,  the  same  as  elsewhere.  The  succession  of  timber,, 
hard-wood  following  pine,  not  appearing  to  hold  good  in  this 
country." 

Int.  414. — Where  did  you  fi^rst  notice  timber  deadened  by 
fire  on  the  road  followed  by  the  McOlellan  expedition  from> 
Vancouver  to  the  mountains  ?. 

Arts. — That  I  can't  say.  I  presume  ft  waa  between  the- 
First  and  Fourth  Plain  behind  Vancouver,  as  it  was  on  thfr 
day — the  21st  of  July — that  we  moved  camp,  a  very  short 
distance  that  I  find  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Lewes  re- 
corded. 

Int.  415. — Is  your  recollection  of  there  being  deadened 
timber  on  the  road  at  all  derived  from  the  fact  that  you  find 
an  entry  in  your  note-book  of  statements  made  by  Lewes? 

Ana. — By  no  means ;  but  I  referred  to  Mr.  Lewes's  state-^ 
ment,.  which  I  then  entered  in  my  note-book,  as  the  most 
xeliable,  direct,  and  circumstantial  evidence  which  I  could' 
give.  The  fact  of  there  being  deadened  timber  over  an  ex-^ 
tensive  tract  upon  that  route  I  perfectly  remember. 

Int.  416. — How  far  did  you  travel  on  that  particular  day,, 
giving  the  distance  in  miles  and  parts  of  miles?. 


485 


Ans. — The  diatanco  between  the  First  and  Fourth  Plains  I 
do  not  recollect ;  I  suppose  they  are  not  more  than  four  or 
five  miles  apart.  According  to  my  note-book,  wo  had  been 
encamped  two  days  at  the  First  Plain,  and  on  the  21st  moved 
to  the  Fourth  Plain,  where  we  waited  for  the  arrival  of  the 
train. 

JdL  417. — How  far  is  the  First  Plain  from  the  Fourth 
Plain  ? 

Ans. — I  really  don't  remember.  These  so-called  plains  are 
merely  holes  in  the  woods,  and  of  no  considerable  extent. 

Int.  418. — Did  you  see  any  deadened  timber  between  the 
First  and  Second  Plain  that  day? 

Ans. — I  won't  pretend  to  say.  Upon  the  subject  of  this 
timber  I  have  given  the  most  precise  and  definite  information 
that  I  am  able  to  give.  The  notes  from  which  I  have  given  it 
were  carefully  prepared,  as  were  all  the  notes  I  kept  upon  the 
different  expeditions  in  which  I  was  employed,  with  a  view  to 
my  own  instruction  as  well  as  to  the  information  I  was  to 
communicate  to  the  Government,  having  no  idea  at  the  time 
that  the  question  of  definite  limits  would  ever  arise.  As  to 
the  boundaries  of  this  burnt  district,  I  neither  described  it 
in  my  notes,  or  retained  it  in  my  recollection. 

Int.  419. — Did  you  see  any  forest  deadened  by  fire  between 
the  Second  and  Third  Plains? 

Ans. — I  regret  exceedingly  that  upon  that  point  I  cannot 
give  you  more  satisfactory  information.  The  amount  of  timber 
deadened  by  fire  in  the  State  of  Oregon  and  the  Territory  of 
Washington  is  very  great,  and  crossing  the  Cascade  range  from 
the  Dalles  of  the  Columbia  to  Oregon  City,  in  the  fall  of  1849, 
the  forest  was  on  fire  for  many  miles,  and  although  the  autum- 
nal rains  had  commenced,  our  wagon  train  was  in  some  places 
in  danger  of  being  lost.  Still  later  in  the  same  season,  in 
crossing  the  Coast  range  of  mountains  from  the  upper  Willam- 
ette to  Yakoona  bay,  I  crossed  another  tract  recently  burnt) 
some  fifteen  miles  square.  You  will  therefore  readily  imagine 
that  the  extent  of  a  fire  a  hundred  or  two  yards,  more  or  less, 
in  any  particular  direction  in  that  country  is  a  matter  which 
one  would  not  particularly  note. 


486 


Int.  420. — Did  you  sco  any  forest  deadened  by  fire  between 
the  Third  and  Fourth  Plains  ? 

An8. — Really  I  can't  say;  I  will  not  pretend  to  locate  the 
boundaries  of  the  burnt  district. 

Int.  421. — What  do  you  mean  by  small  trees,  when  you 
speak  of  the  trees  in  the  forest  near  Fort  Vancouver,  and  be- 
tween Switzler's  and  the  Willamette,  as  being  small?  Give 
the  dimensions  of  an  average  fir  tree  on  the  road  between 
Switzler's  and  the  Willamette  and  near  Fort  Vancouver. 

An». — Size,  in  regard  to  trees  as  in  regard  to  men,  is  com- 
parative. Timber  which  w^ould  bo  considered  small  on  the 
Pacific  coast  might  be  very  large  timber  here,  and  I  made 
no  such  comparison.  My  reference  to  the  size  of  the  timber 
was  solely  as  a  comparison  with  what  might  be  called  the 
primeval  or  original  forest.  I  certainly  will  not  pretend  to 
average  the  size  of  the  trees,  through  there.  The  diameter 
of  trees  in  unbroken  forests  in  Oregon  will  often  run  from  5 
to  10  feet,  and  their  height  from  200  to  250,  n'ul  I  am  very 
certain  that  no  trees  in  the  district  to  which  I  avo  referred 
approach  those  dimensions. 

Int.  422. — Is  not  the  smaller  timber  of  the  secondary  growth 
better  suited  for  the  making  of  lumber  than  the  large  trees, 
whose  dimensions  you  have  just  given? 

Ans. — Undoubtedly  trees  may  be  too  large,  as  are  those  of 
5  and  10  feet  in  diameter,  for  the  ordinary  purposes  of  sawed 
lumber.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  trees  of  a  secondary  growth 
are  not  necessarily  of  a  better  quality  of  wood  than  the  first. 

Int.  423. — What  do  you  mean  when  you  say  most  of  the 
timber  came  from  the  public  lands  in  the  immediate  vicinity, 
in  speaking  of  the  timber  of  which  the  Hudson's  Bay  and 
military  posts  were  built? 

An». — I  mean  that  the  land  was  the  land  of  the  United 
States,  and  not  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Int.  424.-^Do  you  wish  to  be  understood  as  charging  that 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  were  trespassers,  and  cut  timber 
upon  land  to  which  they  had  no  right? 

An». — I  so  understand  it.  I  look  upon  them  in  the  light  of 
any  other  squatters  upon  public  land  in  the  United  States, 


487 

with  this  distinction,  that  having  had,  before  the  question  of 
boundary  was  settled,  a  license  from  the  British  Govcnmiont 
to  trade  with  the  Indians,  they  may  bo  considered  as  having 
the  right  to  remain  there  until  the  expiration  of  that  license, 
but  no  longer. 

Int.  425. — Could  you  not  have  said,  with  equal  truth,  in 
reply  to  interrogatory  2G,  that  most  of  the  timber  came  from 
the  lands  in  the  immediate  vicinity,  without  making  use  of  the 
term  public  lands,  and  thus  saved  yourself  from  making,  infer- 
entially,  charge  of  trespass? 

An%. — Well,  I  don't  know  that  it  would  have  made  any  dif- 
ference any  way. 

Int.  426. — Was  not  this  interrogatory  26  dictated  and  pro- 
pounded by  yourself  in  this  form:  "Where  did  the  timber 
come  from  of  which  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  military  posts  at 
Vancouver  were  built,  and  what  Avas  tliequality  of  the  timber?'' 

Ans. — The  form  of  the  question  was  drawn  up  by  myself. 
The  suggestic,  as  to  title  came  from  one  of  the  counsel  for  the 
Government. 

Cro8»-Examination  Resumed,  July  5,  1867. 


Int.  427. — There  being  no  reference  to  title  in  interrogatory 
26,  which  interrogatory  is  set  out  in  cross-interrogatory  426, 
please  to  explain  what  you  mean  in  your  last  answer  when 
you  say  "the  suggestion  as  to  title  came  from  one  of  the 
counsel  for  the  Government." 

Ans. — That  the  timber  with  which  Fort  Vancouver  was 
built  came  from  the  public  land  of  the  United  States,  and  that 
one  of  the  counsel  had  previously  suggested  the  inquiry  which 
I  put  into  the  form  I  did. 

Int.  428. — What  do  you  mean  by  the  language,  "the  sug- 
gestion as  to  title  came  from  one  of  the  counsel  for  the  Gov- 
ernment?" 

An». — I  mean  simply  that  the  wo:  ding  of  that  interrogatory 
was  my  own,  but  that,  as  I  understood,  it  called  for  the 
information  the  counsel  desired. 


488 


Int.  429. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  counsel  of  the  Gov- 
ernment desired  intormation  from  vou  as  to  title? 

Ans. — My  expression  in  the  first  place  was  a  loose  one. 
The  counsel  for  the  United  States  had  requested  me  to  give 
such  general  information  as  I  could  with  regard  to  all  matters 
relating  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  claims  not  embraced  in  the  direct 
interrogatories  already  propounded,  and  in  doing  so  I  spoke  of 
the  ownership  of  the  lands  being  in  the  United  States.  Of 
course  tlio  legal  point  of  the  title  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany was  not  submitted  to  me  for  an  opinion,  nor  did  I  intend 
to  convey  the  idea  it  had.  I  meant,  however,  to  give  my  own 
views  in  relation  to  the  matter. 

Int.  430. — Do  you  wish  now  to  be  understood  as  saying  that 
no  :  uggcstion  of  title  was  made  to  you  by  the  counsel  of  the 
United  States  in  reference  to  the  26th  interrogatory  or  the 
answer  thereto  ? 

Avs. — I  wish  so  far  to  qualify  that  reply  as  to  state  that  no 
legal  opinion  was  desired  of  me. 

Int.  431.— Do  you  mean  to  say,  then,  now  that  while  no  legal 
opinion  was  required  of  you  by  the  counsel  of  the  United 
States,  that  a  suggestion  of  title  was  made  by  counsel  of  i\\Q 
United  States,  in  reference  to  the  2Gth  interrogatory,  or  the 
answer  thereto. 

An». — I  mean  to  say  this,  that  the  fact  that  this  timber  was 
cut  from  the  land  of  the  United  States  was  spoken  of,  in  con- 
versation between  counsel  and  myself,  as  an  item  in  the  cost 
of  the  construction  of  those  buildings.  On  reflection,  I  do 
not  desire  to  state  that  any  intention  existed  to  draw  from  me 
the  reply  in  the  form  in  which  I  made  it,  but  that  the  fact  was 
predominant  in  my  mind  at  the  time  of  that  question  of  title. 

Int.  432. — In  that  conversation,  did  vou  mention  that  item 
in  the  cost  of  construction,  or  did  the  counsel  speak  of  it  to 
you? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  who  first  alluded  to  it. 

Int.  433. — Do  you  wish  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  you 
framed  this  question  and  made  the  answer  thereto  with  a  view 
to  meet  "an  item  in  the  cost  of  construction,"  which  item  was 
talked  of  by  you  and  the  counsel? 


489 


1  of  the  Gov- 

a  loose  one. 
!(!  me  to  give 
to  all  matters 
1  in  the  direct 

so  I  spoke  of 
I  States.  Of 
I's  Bay  Com- 
r  did  I  intend 

give  my  o^vn 

IS  saying  that 
ounsel  of  the 
gatory  or  the 

)  state  that  no 

while  no  legal 
of  the  United 
counsel  of  the 
gatory,  or  the 

us  timber  was 
ken  of,  in  con- 
em  in  the  cost 
ellection,  I  do 
ilraw  from  me 
at  the  fact  was 
cstion  of  title, 
ition  that  item 
speak  of  it  to 


a  it. 

ying  that  you 
eto  with  a  view 
which  item  was 


Ana. — Looking  at  the  claim  for  cost  of  construction  of  those- 
buildings  as  an  excessive  one,  the  timber  being  obtained  from 
publ'c  lands,  that  idea  undoubtedly  suggested  to  me  the  fornt 
of  reply  which  I  made. 

Int.  434. — Had  you  not  that  idea  when  you  framed  the- 
question,  and  did  you  not  then  intend  the  form  of  reply  which 
you  made  ? 

Ans. — I  presume  I  had. 

Int.  435. — Were  you  acquainted  with  J.  F.  Minter,  civil  en- 
gineer, and  J.  K.  Dunean,  an  officer  in  the  army  of  tlie  United 
States;  if  so,  what  positions  did  they  fill  in  1853,  and  what 
credit  is  to  be  attached  to  any  reports  made  by  them  of  matters 
which  they  officially  reported  on  ? 

Ana. — I  was  acquainted  with  both  of  them.  Lieut.  Duncan 
had  charge  of  the  topography  of  the  survey  ;  Mr.  Minter  made- 
the  field  notes  of  the  route.  As  to  the  credit  to  be  attavdicd! 
to  their  reports,  all  confidence,  of  course,  is  duo  to  them  in 
matters  under  their  actual  observation,  and  within  the  sphere 
of  their  respective  professions. 

Int.  436. — Do  you  know  where  Simsik  is,  and  how  far  fron* 
Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — Simsik,  according  to  my  recollection,  is  one  of  the 
small  prairies  back  of  Fort  Vancouver ;  the  distance  I  don't, 
remember. 

Int.  437. — Is  the  Fourth  Plain  known  also  as  Kolsas ;  and, 
if  80,  how  fiiiT  is  Simsik  from  Ko'.sas,  and  in  what  direction? 

Ana. — My  g^^neral  recollection  of  the  route  through  these 
small  plains  is  that  it  was  northeast.  Not  having  recently  ex- 
amined the  map  «>r  report  upon  theso  points,  however,  I  can 
only  say  that  I  believe  that  Kolsas  was  the  name  of  one- 
of  these  plains;  which,  I  do  not  now  remember,  nor  can  I  give- 
the  distance,  from  memory,  from  one  to  the  other. 

Int.  438. — Have  you  not  somewhere  stated  in  this  examin- 
ation that  your  second  camp  was  called  Kolsas,  on  the  Fourth 
Plain,  and  had  the  same  made  a  part  of  one  of  your  answers,, 
and  afterwards  caused  the  same  to  be  scratched  out? 

Ana. — On  looking  at  the  original  minute  of  answer  to  In- 
terrugatory  414,  it  appears  that  these  words  arc  scratchedt 


490 


out,  *' Moved  camp  to  Fourth  Plain,  called  by  the  Indians? 
Kolsas,"  and,  looking  at  the  note-book  from  which  I  then  read, 
I  find  that  it  was  the  second  camp. 

Int.  439. — Is  your  recollection  of  the  country  back  of  Van- 
couver«sufficie.'itly  accurate  to  enable  you  to  speak  as  to  the 
accuracy  of  the  report  of  the  officer  of  the  McClellan  expedi- 
tion whose  special  duty  it  Avas  to  report  on  the  topography  of 
the  country? 

An%. — My  recollection  of  details  relating  to  the  country  back 
of  Vancouver  is  at  this  period  of  time  not  perfect,  and,  for  that 
reason,  I  have  referred,  in  describing  it,  to  my  note-book.  I 
should,  however,  have  more  confidence  in  my  own  opinion, 
then  formed  and  recorded,  than  in  that  of  another  person, 
particularly  when  I  do  not  remember  what  his  opinion  was. 

Int.  440. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  in  the  descriptions  you 
have  given  in  your  testimony  you  have  relied  on  your  note- 
book made  at  the  time,  and  not  on  your  present  recollection? 

Ans. — I  mean  to  sav  this,  that  in  matters  of  detail  I  have 
preferred  my  note-book  to  my  memory. 

Int.  441- — Is  this  description  taken  from  the  topographical 
report  of  Lieutenant  J.  K.  Duncan  correct  in  its  main  features, 
when  speaking  of  the  road  leading  from  Vancouver  to  the 
mountains,  and  speaking  of  the  country,  too,  he  says:  "Two 
■miles  from  Vancouver  the  trail  crosses  a  brook  twenty  feet 
wide.  From  this  stream  the  country  along  the  trail  breaks 
into  small  openings  or  plains  having  no  timber  on  them.  They 
*'ary  from  a  half  to  several  miles  in  extent,  are  very  level,  and 
are  separated  from  each  other  by  narrow  strips  of  woods. 
Kolsas,  the  largest  of  these  plains,  about  seven  miles  from 
Vancouver,  is  six  or  seven  miles  long  and  three  or  four  in 
breadth.  From  Kolsas  tUe  trail  bears  to  the  northeast  for 
six  mile-!,  to  a  plain  called  Simsik,  about  a  mile  and  a  half  long.. 
The  country  between  Vancouver  and  Simsik  is  similar  in  char- 
acter, heavily  timbered  with  firs,  spruce,  and  dense  undergrowth 
of  maple  and  hazel  bushes?" 

Ans. — I  should  think  that  the  description  generally  is  cor- 
Tcct,  though  in  several  points  I  will  not  vouch  for  itai  absolute 
accuracy- 


491 

Int.  442. — Is  tills  statement,  talccn  from  tlio  itinerary  of 
Captain  McClellan's  route  by  J.  S.  Mintcr,  correct:  "From 
Fort  Vancouver  to  Camp  Waliwaikec  Avagon  road  through  firs, 
with  dense  underbrush,  road  good;  crossed  a  running  creek 
one  three-quarter  miles?" 

Avs. — I  presume  it  is,  though  I  do  not  recollect  the  condi- 
tion of  the  road. 

Int.  443. — Are  there  not  other  buildings  on  the  cast  side  of 
the  stockade  not  shown  by  the  photographs  referred  to  in  your 
answer  to  Interrogatory  27,  and  which  you  say  represents  the 
Governor's  house,  &c.  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  recall  any  on  the  east  side,  though  there 
may  have  been  others. 

Int.  444. — How  far  from  the  back  of  the  long  building,  which 
you  say  was  on  the  east  side,  is  it  to  the  stockade? 

Ans. — I  never  measured  the  distance. 

Int.  445. — What  building  is  it  which  appears  in  this  photo- 
graph to  be  in  the  rear  of  the  picture  and  back  of  the  Gov- 
ernor's house  and  the  long  building? 

Ans. — ]  don't  know  it. 

Int.  440. — Does  this  photograph  do  anytliing  more  than 
represent  three  buildings  and  part  of  another,  in  the  north- 
east angle  of  the  enclosure,  without  showing  the  stockade,  or 
whatever  might  be  concealed  from  view  behind  these  build- 
ings ? 

Ans. — No,  it  does  not. 

Int.  447. — Was  there  not  a  building  of  some  kind  between 
the  sales-shop  and  the  bastion,  not  represented  in  this  picture, 
which  ^ou  say  represents  the  northwest  corner? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  any. 

Int.  448. — Can  you  tell  how  far  back  of  the  buildings  rep- 
resented in  the  photograph  was  the  stockade  ? 

Ans. — No. 

Int.  449. — Did  you  dictate  and  propound  to  yourself  Inter- 
rogatory 27,  in  reference  to  these  photographs  ? 

Ans. — I  did. 

Int.  450. — Did  you  ever  see  any  fruit  on  the  apple  trees  in 


492 


tlic  field  back  of  the  fort,  or  ever  eat  any  of  the  apples  taken 
from  the  trees? 

An%. — I  think  I  have  seen  fruit  there.  I  have  no  recollec- 
tion of  eating  any  of  it. 

Int.  451. — Did  yo^u  ever  see  any  of  the  fruit  when  ripe,  or 
nearly  so  ? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  now  recollect* 

Int.  452. — What  fishing  stations  on  the  Columbia  river,  be* 
sides  those  mentioned  in  your  answer  to  Interrogatory  29,  did 
you  ever  notice  west  of  the  Cascades? 

Ans. — I  think  when  I  first  went  there  there  was  one  station 
where  Rainier  now  is. 

Int.  45-3. — rState  whether  in  1849  you  yourself  saw  signs  of 
beaver  ? 

Ana. — I  do  not  remember  that  in  1849  I  saw  beaver  signs. 

Int.  454. — State  when  you  first  saw  beaver  signs,  and  where 
it  was  ? 

Ans. — The  first  occasions  on  which  I  can  at  this  moment 
recall  seeing  beaver  signs  were  on  the  Cowlitz  and  the  Chihalis 
rivers,  and  I  think  in  1854. 

Int.  455. — Do  you  remember  seeing  beaver  signs  again  after 
that  time  until  you  joined  the  Boundary  Survey  ? 

Ans. — Yes  \  on  the  same  streams  and  others. 

Int.  456. — State  when,  on  what  river,  and  in  whose  company 
you  next  saw  beaver  signs  after  1854. 

Ans. — I  remember  distinctly  to  have  seen  beaver  signs  in 
abundance  more  than  on  one  occasion,  both  on  those  streams 
and  the  waters  running  into  Puget's  Sound,  but  in  whose  com- 
pany I  do  not  know. 

Int.  457. — State  the  time  and  the  name  of  the  stream 
running  into  Puget'ftj  Sound  on  which  you  saw  beaver  sign. 

Ans. — I  have  seen  beaver  signs  on  the  stream  running  into 
Puget's  Sound  in  the  neighborhood  of  Fort  Townshend.  I 
think  that  was  in  1856. 

Int.  458. — What  authority  have  you  for  the  statement  that 
at  Chinook  but  a  few  sea  otters  were  taken  in  answer  to  In* 
terrogatory  30, 'as  to  the  general  state  of  the  fur  trade? 

Ans. — My  authority  wa«  Duchesnay,  who  kept  the  store 


493 


hose  company 


tliero-     The  fact  was  also  notorious  to  every  one  living  in  tho 
neighborhoocl. 

(The  statement  of  Duchcsnay  and  the  matter  of  notoriety 
objected  to.) 

Int.  459. — Was  not  Duchcsnay's  statement  simply  that  in 
one  season  he  had  obtained  ten  sea  otter  skins? 

Ans. — He  stated   the  obtaining  of  ten  sea  otter  skins  as  a 
matter  of  congratulation. 

Int.  4G0. — Did  he  say  anything  to  you  in  reference  to  other 
furs  ? 
Ans. — Nothing  that  I  recollect. 

Tnt.  4G1. — Are  not  sea  otter  skins  by  far  the  most  valuable 
furs  known  to  the  fur  trade  on  the  northwest  coast,  and,  even 
at  the  time  Duchcsnay  made  this  statement  to  you,  difficult  to 
obtain  ? 
Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  462. — Who  was  present  when  Governor  Ogden    told 
you  that  American  Oregon  never  was  a  fur-bearing  country  ? 
Ans. — I  don't  know. 

Int.  46.3. — When  d'ld  this  conversation  take  place  ? 
Ans. — It  must  have  been  within  a  year  after  my  arrival  in 
the  country. 

Int.  464. — Is  this  statement  with   referencj  to  Governor 
Ogden  made  from  memory  or  taken  from  your  note-book  ? 
Ans. — Both.     It  impressed  me  very  strongly  at  the  time. 
Int.  465. — Can  you  not  now,  by  referring   to  your  note- 
book, give  the  date  of  this  conversation  ? 

Ans. — No ;  but  it  is  embraced  in  a  paper  which  I  prepared 
long  previous  to  the  published  report. 

Int.  466. — For  what  purpose  was  that  paper  prepared,  lo 
whom  directed,  and  where  is  it  now? 

Ans. — The  paper  was  one  of  several  which  I  prepared  on 
the  condition  of  Oregon,  for  whom  I  do  not  remember  now ; 
but  the  rough  draft  is,  I  believe,  among  my  papers. 

Cross-Examination  Ilesumed,  July  6,  1867. 

Int.  467. — Did  you  have  your  note-book  or  the  paper  men- 
tioned above  before  you  at  the  time  you  gave  this  statement 
of  Governor  Ogden's  to  be  taken  down  ? 


494 


Ans. — Perhaps  not  at  tlic  moment. 

Int.  4G8. — Which  one  did  you  examine  before  you  made  the 
Statement,  and  how  long  before  you  made  the  statement  did 
you  examine  the  paper  or  book  ? 

Alts. — I  remember  seeing  tiie  article  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred recently,  but  how  many  days  before  making  the  state- 
ment I  don't  remember. 

Int.  405). — Repeat  now  from  memory  the  statement  you  h,  e 
just  referred  to  as  made  by  Governor  Ogden  and  preserved  by 
you. 

Ans. — The  statement  was  substantially  this  :  that  American 
Oregon  never  was  a  fur  country,  except  in  regard  to  beaver; 
that,  in  consequence  of  the  fall  in  the  price  of  beaver,  they 
had,  in  eifect,  ceased  to  be  hunted,  and  had  become  as  numer- 
ous as  thev  were  at  the  first  flush  of  the  trade. 

Int.  470. — How  long  after  your  first  answer  to  Interroga- 
tory 30  did  you  cause  the  following  interlination  to  be  maJe 
in  that  answer:  "Not  paying  for  tranc^  :rtation  to  London, 
they  were  not  hunted  much?" 

Ans. — I  have  caused  no  interlineation  whatever  to  be  made 
in  that  testimony,  excepting  while  the  same  was  being  taken, 
and  before  the  conclusion  of  any  day's  examination,  unless  it 
might  be  in  the  presence  of  counsel  and  in  reference  to  mat- 
ters of  verbal  correction. 

Int.  471. — Was  this  interlineation,  just  mentioned,  made  at 
the  time  you  first  answered  Interrogatory  30,  or  at  some  other 
time,  in  the  presence  of  counsel? 

Arts. — It  was  part  of  my  original  answer  to  the  question. 
Int.  472. — Did  you  recollect,  then,  at  the  time  when  the 
answer  was  made,  that  Mr.  Ogden  gave  as  a  reason  for  their 
hunting  beaver  their  not  paying  for  transportation  to  London? 

Ans. — I  gave  as  a  reason  for  the  fur  trade  not  paying  that 
beaver  were  not  worth  more,  laid  down  in  London,  than  their 
actual  cost. 

Int.  473. — The  reason  given,  then,  for  not  hunting  the  beaver 
is  yours,  and  not  Gov.  Ogden's? 

Ana. — The  reason  for  the  falling-off  in  the  value  of  the  fur 


49o 


T  the  state- 


it  American 
I  to  beaver ; 
)eaver,  tlicy 
e  as  nunier- 


trudo,  in  consciincncc  of  the  fall  in  the  price  of  heaver,  was 
Tiov.  ()!j;(lcii's,  and  not  mine. 

Int.  474. — Dill  Gov.  Of^ilen  make  use  of  this  language  to 
you,  in  speaking  of  heaver,  "That  they  did  not  then  pay  to 
to  transport  to  London,  and  that,  not  paying  for  transportation 
to  London,  thev  were  not  hunted  much? 


l/hs\ 


■lie  certainly  stated  to  tliat  effect. 


Ill 


Int.  47"). — State  what  he  did  say  with  reference  to  heaver, 
connection  with  London. 


Anfi. — That  I  have  already  stated. 

Int.  47il. — Whv  did  vou  not  recollect  about  ten  minutes 
since,  when  asked  to  repeat  from  memory  tlie  statements  of 
Gov.  Ogden,  that  he  said  anything  about  beaver  not  paying 
transportation  to  London,  and  that  being  the  cause  why  they 
were  not  hunted  ? 

-Because  I  was  thinking  more  of  the  fact  than  the 


A 


HS. 


words 


Int.  477. — Can  you  give  the  exact  language  made  use  of  by 
Gov.  Ogdeu  in  reference  to  the  fur  trade? 

Ann. — No;  I  have  never  pretended  to. 

Int.  47S. — Did  he  ever  make  use,  in  speaking  to  you,  of  the 
term  American  Orejion  in  this  connection,  "  American  Ororron 
never  was  a  fur  country?" 

An<. — lie  distinguished  between  the  portion  of  Oregon  be- 
longing to  the  United  States,  from  the  country  north  of  it. 

Int.  471). — Is  not  the  language  "American  Oregon  never 
was  a  fur  country"  your  own,  and  taken  from  a  report  on  In- 
ilian  tribes,  before  referred  to,  made  by  you,  with  the  excep- 


tion that  the  words  "strictly  speaking"  are  left  out 


A 


ns. 


presume  the  expression  occurs 


in 


that 


report. 


Int.  480. — Ls  not  all  the  language  given  by  you  as  that  of 
Gov,  Ogden,  in  answer  to  Interrogatory  oO,  your  own? 

Ans. — It  is  as  near  his  as  I  can  remember. 

Int.  481. — Was  not  this  Interrogatory  30,  as  to  the  general 
state  of  the  fur  trade,  one  of  your  own  interrogatories  ? 

Ans. — I  believe  it  was. 

Int.  48'2. — Is  this  Interrogatory  31  yours  also :  "  Do  you 


^o 


II 


49i 


know  the  amount  of  fur;}  actually  collected  in  Oregon  in  any 
one  year?" 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  483. — What  Indian  trail  did  the  Company  follow,  in 
making  a  road  from  Fort  Vancouver  to  their  saw-mills,  near 
Mill  Plain? 

Ans. — I  have  not  specified  that  as  one  which  they  did  follow. 

Int.  484. — Have  you,  in  your  answer  to  Interrogatory  32, 
specified  any  Indian  trail  which  the  Company  followed  in 
making  a  road  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  now  how  specific  I  was  in  replying 
to  that  question.     I  can  specify  trails,  if  desired. 

Int.  485. — Can  you  specify  any  Indian  trail  which  you 
yourself  saw,  and  knew  to  be  an  Indian  trail,  while  you  were 
in  Oregon,  that  you,  after  thus  seeing  it,  saw  or  knew  to  be 
changed  into  a  road  or  followed  as  a  road  by  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  have  seen  Michel  Ogden,  in  1860,  with  a  Com- 
pany's train,  on  the  trail  from  the  Flat-Head  Fort  to  Fort 
Colvile.  I  have  seen  Linklater,  in  the  same  year,  on  the 
trail  to  Fort  Kootenay.  I  have  seen,  in  1849,  Mr.  McArtlmr 
on  the  trai'  to  Fort  Hall.  I  have  seen  other  parties  on  otiicr 
routes  or  trails,  at  different  times. 

Int.  486. — How  do  you  know  that  these  trails  between  the 
Company's  posts  were  not  originally  trails  of  the  Company, 
and  laid  out  by  them,  though  common  afterwards  to  Indians 
and  whites? 

Ans. — Both  by  common  repute,  and  because  the  Indians  had 
no  other  travelled  trails  between  such  points. 

Int.  487. — Is  not  common  repute  and  hearsay  the  authority 
for  this  statement:  "They  have  also  cut  out  so  much  of  the 
trail  from  Cowlitz  Landing  to  Nisqually  as  ran  through  the 
woods?" 

Ans. — Dr.  Tolmie  is  my  authority  for  the  statement  that 
the  Company  had  cut  out  the  trail  there. 

Int.  488. — What  was  the  width  of  this  road  as  cut  through 
the  timber  in  the  bottom  of  the  Chihalis  river? 

Ans. — It  varied  in  width  in  that  part  known  as  Saunders' 


497 


on  in  any 


Bottom,  two  or  three  tracks  sometimes  straggling  parallel  to 
each  other  through  the  timber.  How  much  the  Company  cut 
out,  I  don't  know. 

Int.  489. — To  what  width  was  the  timber  cut  for  the  passage 
of  the  trail  in  what  you  call  Saunders'  Bottom  at  the  time  you 
first  saw  it,  and  state  when  you  did  first  see  it? 

Am. — I  first  saw  that  in  December,  1853.  It  was  with  dif- 
ficulty that  two  wagons  could  pass.  How  far,  at  that  time, 
the  timber  was  cut,  I  don't  remember. 

Int.  490. — Do  you  know  anything  about  the  condition,  from 
your  own  observation,  of  the  road,  60  or  70  miles  in  leiigth, 
from  Cowlitz's  Landing  to  Fort  Nisqually,  before  1853? 

^M«.— Having  subsequently  surveyed  the  route  of  the  road, 
with  a  view  to  its  improvement,  I  know,  from  personal  obser- 
vation, that  in  places  it  must  have  been  a  bad  one. 

Int.  491. — Did  not  all  the  travel  from  Columbia  river  to 
the  Sound  pass  over  at  least  40  miles  of  this  route  during  the 
time  you  personally  knew  it,  and  until  the  new  military  road 
was  opened  on  the  other  side  of  the  Chihalis  river  ? 

Ans. — It  did,  but  it  did  not  amount  to  much. 

Int.  492. — Was  there  not,  to  your  knowledge,  in  the  sum- 
mer season,  a  four-horse  coach  running  from  Olympia,  on  the 
Sound,  over  a  portion  of  the  old  route  to  Monticello,  on  the 
Cowlitz  river,  below  a  place  called  Cowlitz  Landing? 

Ans. — I  never  saw  it. 

Int.  493. — Did  not  Dr.  Tolmie,  in  some  of  the  conversations, 
speaking  of  the  Cowlitz  road,  tell  you  that  the  coach  was  run- 
ning over  that  road,  or  a  portion  of  it? 

Ans. — No. 

Int.  494. — On  this  road,  from  Cowlitz  Landing  to  Fort  Nis- 
qually, were  there  not  numerous  bridges  built  over  low 
grounds,  swamps,  and  some  of  the  very  small  streams  occur- 
ring on  the  road? 

Ans. — There  was  some  very  rough  corduroying,  and  a  few 
small  bridges. 

Int.  495. — Did  the  employes  of  the  Boundary  Survey  build 
any  bridges,  or  corduroy,  on  any  portion  of  the  trail  they  cut? 

Ans. — They  did. 


498 


Int.  49 J. — Did  tlio  Boundary  Commission  travel  with  any- 
thing hut  pack  animals? 

Ann. — Thoy  did,  from  Colvilc  to  Walla-Walla,  and  froiii 
Colvilo  to  Sinyakwateon. 

Int.  498. — Did  the  Boundary  Survey  use  anything  hut  pack 
animals  in  travelling  over  the  clear  tract  of  8  foct  wide,  cut 
out  by  its  employes? 

Ajih. — No,  of  course  not. 

Int.  499. — Were  the  bridges  you  speak  of  constructed  by 
the  Boundary  Survey  anything  better  or  different  than  tlie 
common  corduroy? 

Ans. — Some  of  thorn  were  very  well  constructed,  of  split 
puncheons,  spiked  down. 

Int.  500. — Were  there  any  barges  or  steamers  on  the  Colum- 
bia river,  above  White  Bluffs,  which  could  be  hired  for  trans- 
portation during  the  time  of  the  McClellan  expedition  or  the 
Boundary  Survey^ 

Ans. — There  were  no  steamers.  Bateaux  could  have  been 
hired  at  Colvile,  if  required. 

Int.  501. — What  authority  have  you  for  the  statement  that 
for  several  years  before  1860,  the  transportation  of  supplies  to 
Colvile  was  from  Victoria? 

Ans. — Partly  from  officers  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 
and  in  part  from  citizens  and  what  I  knew  myself. 

Int.  502. — State  when  your  personal  observation  of  this 
transportation  between  Colvile  aad  Victoria  first  took  jdacc. 
giving  the  exact  date. 

Ans. — My  personal  observation  was  of  a  negative  character, 
in  ceasing  to  see  their  bateaux  and  boatmen.  The  exact 
dates  I  cannot  pretend  to  give. 

Int.  503. — Do  you  know  anything  of  their  bateaux,  AvitL 
boatmen,  passing  up  and  down  the  Columbia  river,  except 
from  hearsay  ? 

Ans. — I  have  seen  bateaux  and  boatmen  at  Fort  Vancouver 
in  early  times.  I  also  saw  them  in  1853  at  Colvile.  Subse- 
quently I  do  not  recollect  to  have  seen  any,  though  I  may 
have  seen  them  at  Vancouver. 


499 

Int.  504. — At  what  date  did  you  first  visit  Colvilo  after 
1853  ? 

Ann. — Not  until  IS'jO. 

Int.  .OOr). — Were  there  not  bateaux  at  Colvilc  at  tliat  time? 

Ans. — I  recollect  seeing  two,  uhich  had  been  built  some 
time  and  never  been  used. 

Int.  50G. — Could  not  the  Commission  have  hired  them  ? 

Ans. — I  presume  they  could. 

Int.  507. — Would  these  bateaux  hold  enough  to  have  been 
of  use  in  bringing  freight  from  White  Bluffs  to  Colvilo  for  the 
Boundary  Survey  party  ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  508.— Who  did  they  belong  to  ? 

Ann. — I  understood  to  one  of  the  discharged  men  of  the 
Company. 

Gross-Examination  Resumed,  July  8,  18G7. 


Int.  500. — Do  you  know  anything  of  your  own  personal 
observation  of  the  condition  and  prospects  of  the  mining  region 
on  the  w^estern  slope  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  since  1800? 

Ans. — No ;  I  have  not  been  there  since. 

Int.  510. — Do  you  know  anything  from  your  own  personal 
observation,  since  1860,  of  mines  on  the  Columbia  river  and 
its  tributaries  north  of  49°  ? 

Ans. — Nothing  from  personal  observation. 

Int.  511. — What  portion  of  the  year  did  you  spend  at  the 
boundary  survey  camp,  United  States  post,  near  Colville  ? 

Ans. — I  spent  the  winter,  from  some  time  in  November, 
1859,  until  March,  1860,  and  subsequently  was  there  again  for 
a  short  time  in  the  fall  of  1860. 

Int.  512. — During  these  times  you  have  last  mentioned,  did 
any  pack-train  arrive  from  Oregon  at  the  post  or  the  village 
near  the  post  ? 

Ans. — I  think  the  last  Government  train  from  Walla- Walla 
was  already  in  when  I  stopped  at  the  post  in  1859,  but  that  a 
sutler's  train,  and  perhaps  goods  for  store-keepers  at  the  vil- 


600 


lage  of  Pinkneyville,  arrived  afterwards;  as  to  1800,  I  know 
nothing. 

Int.  613. — Did  you  see  that  train  with  goods  for  the  sutler? 

Ana. — I  can't  say  that  I  did,  but  I  believe  that  the  sutler 
brought  up  goods  after  my  arrival  there. 

Int.  514. — Were  you  well  acquainted  with  the  late  Dr. 
McLoughlin  ? 

Ans. — I  was. 

Int.  515. — Where  did  he  reside  ? 

Ans. — At  Oregon  City. 

Int.  510. — Did  you  visit  Oregon  City  as  frequently  a?  ,  ou 
did  Fort  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — I  think  not. 

Int.  517. — Did  Dr.  McLoughlin  tell  you  that  he  had  helped 
and  assisted  the  early  emigrants  in  their  settlement  of  Oregon? 

Ans. — He  did. 

Int.  518. — Did  he  tell  you  that  he  was  at  that  time  an  officer 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  the  head  of  the  establish- 
ment at  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — At  the  time  of  which  he  spoke,  he  was  an  officer  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  in  charge  of  Fort  Vancouver; 
that  he  said  so  in  terms,  I  cannot  say.  It  was  as  well  kno^vn 
as  the  fact  of  one  having  been  President  ofthe  United  States 
at  a  particular  period. 

Int.  519. — Name  the  officer  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
who  told  you  that  the  policy  of  the  Company  as  fur  traders 
was  decidedly  hostile  to  settlement  of  Oregon  by  the  early 
emigrants.  State,  also,  the  time  when  and  the  place  where  it 
occurred,  and  giving  also  the  rank  of  the  officer  in  the  Corn- 
pan}^  at  the  time  ? 

Ans. — Incidentally  it  was  apparent  in  conversation  with  the 
officers  generally;  directly,  the  only  officers  whose  names  I 
could  give  are  Dr.  McLoughlin  and  Governor  Ogden.  This 
information  was  received  in  the  course  of  conversations  that 
took  place  during  various  visits  that  I  made  to  them  at  Oregon 
City  and  Fort  Vancouver,  the  precise  dates  of  which  I  am 
unable  t<i  give. 


601 


Int.  520. — At  what  time  did  Governor  0<»(lou  speak  to  you 
of  tlic  roloiiizatioTi  of  Vancouver's  Lslaiid? 

A)is. — I  cannot  give  the  date  of  conversations  of  which  I 
took  no  note. 

Int.  521. — Have  you  not,  in  reporting  these  conversations 
of  Dr.  McLoughlin  and  Governor  Ugdcn,  rather  ;^iven  your 
impressions  of  what  they  said  than  the  actual  conversations, 
rrtho  substance  of  them? 

An'^. — I  think  I  have  given  the  substance  of  them  correctly. 

Int.  522. — In  your  conversation  with  the  officers  of  the 
Company,  did  you  learn  the  fact  that  there  were  no  colonists 
whatever  on  Vancouver's  island  at  the  time  Mr.  Douglas  was 
made  Governor  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  that  I  did. 

Ih(,  523. — Name  the  officer  of  the  Company  who  told  you 
that  he  was  disappointed  at  the  settlement  of  the  boundary, 
giving  time  and  place,  and  also  the  rank  of  the  officer  in  the 
Company  at  the  time. 

Ans, — I  cannot  name  any  one  in  particular.  I  do  not  think 
any  of  them  would  deny  it. 

Int.  524. — Have  you  ever  been  on  French  Prairie,  in  the 
valley  of  the  Willamette? 

Ans. — Yes ;  I  have  passed  through  it. 

Int.  525. — Did  you  ever  converse  with  any  of  the  settlers 
on  French  Prairie  while  passing  through  there?  if  so,  state 
when  was  it,  and  give  the  name  or  names  of  the  party  or  parties 
with  whom  you  had  any  conversation  or  conversations. 

Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  whether  I  conversed  or  not 
with  parties  resident  on  the  French  Prairie  while  in  the  act  of 
passing  through  it. 

Lit.  526. — What  discharged  servant  of  the  Company,  know- 
ing him  to  be  such,  did  you  ever  see  settled  or  residing  on 
French  Prairie? 

An8. — I  have  seen  Canadians  whose  homos  were  on  the 
French  Prairie,  who,  by  common  report,  had  been  servants  of 
the  Company. 

Int.  527. — Is  not  all  you  know  about  the  settlement  on 
French  Prairie  embodied  in  your  last  aiswer,  namely,  that 


502 


you  have  seen  Canadians,  reported  to  be  servants  of  the  Com- 
pany, who  had  settled  upon  the  French  Prairie  ? 

Ans. — It  is  a  matter  of  recollection,  though  I  cannot  spccifv 
individuals,  nor  swear  to  the  fact  of  their  having  been  in  tlie 
service  of  the  Company,  that  such  was  the  common  and  undi- 
vided acceptance  of  the  fact. 

Int.  518. — Is  not  the  statement  that  the  employes  of  t)io 
Company  were  encouraged  to  take  up  land  an  inference  ot" 
your  own,  from  the  fact  that  Canadians,  by  common  report. 
former  servants  of  the  Company,  had  taken  up  land  in  Oregon  ■:■ 

Ans. — I  think  not. 

Int.  529. — By  what  authority,  other  than  common  report 
or  hearsay,  did  you  make  this  statement? 

Ans. — That  sort  of  conviction  that  grows  oat  of  familiar 
acquaintance  with  all  the  surroundings,  and  the  general  tone 
of  conversation. 

Int.  530. — M^ere  not  these  settlements  made  before  your 
arrival  in  the  country  in  1849  ? 

Ans. — They  were  for  the  most  part. 

Int.  531. — Were  you  ever  on  Muck  Prairie,  or  the  Canadian 
Plain,  so  called,  on  the  Nisqually  Plains,  before  1853  ? 

Ana. — No. 

Int.  532. — State  when  you  were  first  on  the  Muck  Prairie, 
and  how  often  you  visited  it  thereafter,  and,  as  near  as  you 
can,  the  dates  of  these  visits. 

Ans. — In  1855.  I  don't  remember  how  often  I  subsequently 
visited  them,  but  not  often ;  I  can't  state  the  dates. 

Int.  533. — Can  you  state  distinctly  and  plainly  that  you 
have  made  more  than  one  visit  to  Muck  Plain  ? 

Ans. — I  distinctly  remember  but  one,  though  I  think  I  have 
been  there  more  than  once. 

Int.  634. — At  the  house  or  claim  of  what  settler  on  the 
Muck  Plain  did  you  stop  at  the  time  of  the  visit  wiiich  you 
distinctly  recollect  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  nt.  »v  be  positive.  I  was  surveying  at  the 
time,  and  I  think  stopped  at  twr  or  three  houses,  probably 
Wren's  or  Smith's  among  the  number. 


J03 


the  Corn- 

ot  specify 

?en  in  the 

and  undi- 

yes  of  t)ie 
ferenco  of 
on  veport, 

11  Oregon '( 

ion  report 

)f  familiar 
sneral  tone 

efore  your 


J  Canadian 
53? 

ok  Prairie, 
ear  as  you 

)scquently 

y  that  you 

link  I  have 

tier  on  the 
which  you 

ing  at  the 
s,  probably 


Int.  3o'). — State  when  you  first  visited  the  Cani<,dian  Plain, 
and  how  many  visits  you  made  there. 

Ans. — I  certainly  visited  it  on  that  occasion  ;  (fcn't  remember 
any  other  time. 

Int.  5o(]. — Were  you  at  the  farm  of  any  settlor  on  the 
Canadian  Plain  ? 

Ans. — Most  probably  ;  but  I  cannot  specify  from  memory. 

Int.  5o7. — Is  not  all  the  statement  made  by  you,  in  answer 
to  Interrogatory  88,  in  reference  to  the  Cayusc  war,  made 
from  hearsay  and  common  report? 

Ans. — Of  course  it  was.  I  was  not  in  the  country  at  the 
time,  though  I  was  when  some  of  the  Indians  were  hung  for 
the  offence ;  was  cognizant  of  the  testimony  given,  and  con- 
versed tliereou  with  officers  of  the  Company  and  with  citizens. 

Int.  538. — Did  you  hear  the  testimony  of  witnesses  on  the 
trial  of  these  Indians? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  whether  I  was  present  or  not. 

Int.  530. — V/as  it  published  and  read  by  you  afterwards? 

Ans. — I  think  it  was  published  in  full ;  and  I  either  read  it 
or  heard  the  substance  at  the  time. 

Int.  540. — Were  not  the  Interrogatories  38,  as  to  the  Cayuse 
war;  37,  as  to  settlement  by  employes  of  the  (.'oinpany;  30, 
as  to  the  policy  of  tho  Company  as  regards  settlement ;  35,  as 
to  the  effect  of  the  discovery  of  gold  on  the  Company's  busi- 
ness; 34,  as  to  transportation  of  the  Company  from  Colvile; 
33,  as  to  the  way  the  Pacific  Railroad  and  Boundary  Commis- 
sion  supp'od  themselves;  32,  as  to  the  roads;  and  31,  as  to 
the  amount  of  furs  collected — all  questions  dictatt;d,  asked, 
and  ans">vi^i'ed  bv  vou  ? 

Ans. — Tliov  were;  most,  if  not  all,  of 'them. 

Int.  541. — What  reason  had  you  for  asking  yourself  tho 
last  question,  "How  the  Cayuse  war  of  1847  was  begun," 
'.viien  you  knew  nothing  of  its  origin  personally,  and  could 
only  onswcr  by  hearsay? 

A}is. — JMie  object  was  to  show  that,  with  all  the  influence  of 
the  Company  itscli'  upon  those  Indians,  in  their  immediate 
neighborhood,  they  had  not  been  able  to  prevent  this  massacre, 


504 

and  that  it  was  not  through  the  fault  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States  that  tliis  war  and  interruption  to  their  trade  occurred. 

Int.  543. — In  carrying  out  your  object  of  showing  that  the 
influence  of  the  Company  over  the  Indians  couhl  not  prevent 
this  massacre,  was  this  the  only  instance  of  the  kind  that  you 
recollected  ? 

Ans. — I  think  the  case  of  the  Molele  war  in  the  Willamette 
Valley  shows  also  their  want  of  influence,  but  I  do  not  think 
that  aff'ected  their  trade. 

Int.  544. — Do  j'ou  think  it  important  to  show  that  the  Com- 
pany had  not  much  influence  over  the  Indian  tribes  in  Oregon? 

Ans. — I  think  it  important  to  show  that  the  loss  of  their 
trade  did  not  originate  through  the  fault  of  our  people. 

I7it.  545. — Was  the  question  38,  and  the  answer  thereto,  the 
best  that  you  coald  do  in  carrying  out  this  import,' at   '^^^"1? 

Ans. — That  I  really  cannot  say. 

Int.  546. — Don't  you  recollect,  amongst  other  reporti-,  that 
you  were  told,  and  believed,  that  Dr.  Whitman  and  his  wife 
were  American  nissionaries,  settled  in  the  Cayusc  and  Walla- 
Walla  countries;  that  the  other  persons  massjfcrod  comprised 
residents  at  this  American  mission  and  emigrants  who  had 
safely  passed  through  the  Snake  country,  and  were  then  stop- 
ping at  the  mission  ;  and  that  the  young  women  abducted  were 
chiefly  American  emigrants  of  the  same  year. 

Ans. — I  remember,  with  the  exception  of  the  date  of  the 
emigration. 

Int.  547. — Did  you  not  also  hear  that  the  attack  upon  this 
mission  and  its  occupants  arose  from  a  belief  on  the  part  of 
the  savages  that  some  injury  had  been  done,  or  was  about  t 
be  done,  to  them  by  Dr.  Whitman  and  those  with  him  ? 

Ans. — I  heard  that  one  of  the  causes  of  the  massacre  was 
the  superstition  on  the  part  of  the  Indians  as  to  the  origin  of 
the  measles  which  existed  among  them. 

Int.  548. — Have  not  these  superstitions  as  to  the  origin  of 
the  measles  and  small-pox  several  times  been  reported  to  you 
as  causes  which  led  the  Indians  either  to  drive  off  or  obstr'  t 
both  scientific  parties  and  settlers? 

Ans. — They  certainly  have  led  to  such  opposition. 


505 


f  the  United 

lie  occurred. 

ing  that  the 

not  prevent 

ind  that  you 

e  AYiHamctte 
do  not  think 

hat  the  Com- 
;s  in  Oregon? 
loss  of  their 
people, 
r  thereto,  the 
rtaat   -^^ic^t? 

reports,  that 
and  his  wife 
se  and  Walla- 
I'ed  comprised 
xnts  who  had 
ere  then  stop- 
ibducted  were 

0  date  of  the 

tack  upon  this 
on  the  part  of 
•  was  about  t 
th  him  ? 
!  massacre  was 
0  the  origin  of 

0  the  origin  of 
eported  to  you 
off  or  obstr'   t 

jition. 


Int.  549. — Did  you  not  hear,  as  you  have  stated  in  your 
answer  to  Interrogatory  38,  that  Governor  Ogdon  promptly 
interfered  and  ransomed  the  women,  and  that  he  at  once,  upon 
hearing  the  news  of  the  massacre  of  these  people  and  the  cap- 
tivity of  others,  in  person,  and  accompanied  by  a  large  party 
of  the  employes  of  the  Company,  went  to  the  scene  of  the 
massacre,  and,  by  the  exercise  of  his  influence,  rescued  from 
captivity  men  as  well  as  women  ? 

Ans. — I  have  heard  and  believe  those  facts.  Governor 
Ogden  behaved  nobly  and  promptly  on  that  occasion,  as  I  have 
stated  in  my  printed  report.  I  do  not  knoAV,  however,  that 
any  men  were  saved. 

Int.  550. — Have  you  not  also  heard  that  these  captives  were 
purchased  from  the  Indians,  and  that  no  portion  of  the  ex- 
pense of  this  expedition,  or  of  the  expense  incurred  in  rescuing 
the  captives,  had  ever  been  asked  either  of  the  Government  of 
Oregon  or  of  that  of  the  United  States  by  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  ? 

Ans. — I  did  so  hear,  and  believe  it  to  be  true. 

Int.  551. — Do  you  not  know  that  before  the  Indian  war  of 
1855  and  1856  the  Indian  tribes  east  of  the  Cascade  range 
were  rich  in  horses,  and  that  some  of  the  tribes  were  possessors 
of  cattle  also  ? 

Ans — Some  of  the  tribes,  or  rather  individuals  in  those 
tribes,  possessed  large  bands  of  horses.  In  other  tribes  horses 
were  scarce.     A  few  of  them  had  cattle. 

Int.  552. — Did  not  the  Company,  so  far  as  your  knowledge 
went,  furnish  to  the  Indians  the  blankets  which  they  wore, 
•lieir  hats  and  shirts,  and  all  the  clothing  they  could  afford  to 
.  uichase.  Were  not  the  traps  of  the  hunters  and  the  guns 
used  by  them  also  furnished  by  the  Company,  and  were  not 
all  these  articles  usually  purchased  by  the  Indians  with  their 
furs  or  with  their  labor  ? 

Ans, — The  Company,  until  the  American  merchants  largely 
entered  the  country,  certainly  furnished  all  those  articles,  but 
of  late  years  only  a  small  portion  for  fu.'s  and  very  little  for 
labo',  obtaining  exorbitant  prices  for  them. 

Int.  553. — How  often,  and  at  what  distances  of  time  between 


I, 

fii 


506 

your  visits,  have  you  visited  the  Cascade  portage  of  the  Col- 
umbia river? 

Ans. — About  three  times.  I  was  there  in  the  fall  of  18o3; 
I  think  again  in  1855,  and  again  in  1800. 

Int.  554. — Did  you  stop  on  either  of  these  visits  longer  than 
was  absolutely  necessary  to  make  the  portage? 

Ans. — I  was  on  two  occasions  there  for  some  hours. 

Int.  555. — State  when  those  occasions  were,  and  what  de- 
layed you  longer  than  was  necessary  to  make  the  portage? 

Ans. — In  1853  and  1860.  In  the  first  case,  I  was  detained 
there  by  weather,  and.  I  think,  waiting  for  transportation. 
In  the  second,  durin-^  the  connection  of  the  boats  from  the 
Dalles  to  the  Cascfdes,  and  from  the  Cascades  to  Vancouver? 

/  '/.  556. — Did  you  delay  ten  minutes  longer  than  was  abso- 
lute!;,        ossary  at  this  last  visit  in  1860  ? 

Ans."    I  did  not  hurry  myself. 

Int.  557. — Between  the  arrival  of  the  down-boat  steamer  at 
the  Cascades  and  the  departure  of  the  down-boat  from  the 
Cascades  at  the  lower  end  of  the  portage,  could  you  have  found 
any  moment  of  time  that  you  were  not  necessarily  compelled 
to  stop  at  the  portage  ? 

Ans. — I  could  not  get  away  before  I  did. 

Int.  558. — At  the  time  you  were  there  in  1860  at  the  Cas- 
cades, were  you  on  the  north  bank  of  the  river,  where  the 
portage  is  usually  made,  at  all  ? 

Ans. — I  was  on  the  north  bank  of  the  river. 

Int.  559. — Was  there  a  railroad,  with  cars  upon  it,  in  use 
at  that  time  on  either  bank  of  the  river? 

Ans. — There  was  either  a  railroad  or  tramway  over  which 
baggage  was  conveyed  on  the  north  bank,  and  some  tressel 
work  had  been  put  up  on  the  south  side  for  another. 

Cross-Examination  Resumed,  July  9,  1867. 


Int.  560. — Was  there  anything  like  a  railroad  operated  by 
horse  or  mule  power  or  steam  at  the  Cascades,  on  either  side 
of  the  Columbia  river,  at  the  time  you  crossed  the  portage  for 
the  last  time? 


507 


on  it,  in  use 


Ans. — There  was  somctliing  like  a  roiiroad;  by  ^Yllat  power 
it  was  manajiotl,  wiiethcr  bv  mule  or  hand,  I  tlon't  know. 

Jnt.  C^W.- — What  was  its  length;  between  what  points  docs 
it  run;  uas  it  made  witii  flat  bar  upon  wood,  or  with  the  iron 
rail  used  for  railroads  operated  by  locomotives? 

Alls. — That  is  more  than  I  can  say.  My  impression  is  that 
it  passeil  the  length  of  the  portage. 

Int.  0(12. — Did  you  see  this  road  at  all;  if  so,  state  at  what 
points  yon  did  see  it  ? 

Aitit.^-l  did  see  the  road;  at  what  points  I  cannot  define. 

Inf.  t'A')'-' — Did  you  see  it  except  at  the  landing? 

Ans. — If  I  recollect  right,  I  did. 

Jiit.  r)(i4. — State  the  points  between  the  landings  where  you 
saw  it,  and  how  far  you  were  from  it  at  the  time  you  saw  it. 

A)i.9. — I  remember  distinctly  the  existence  of  the  road,  and 
the  fact  (if  nassiiicT  close  bv  it ;  as  to  the  rest.  I  don't  remember. 

Int.  '){'»•'}. — Is  what  you  have  last  stated  all  you  recollect  of 
tliis  road — "  That  you  recollect  passing  by  a  road  of  some 
kind?" 

Ans. — Pretty  much  all. 

Int.  TjiX) — ITow  often  were  you  at  the  Dalles? 

J««.— En  1841),  18r>3,  and  18(30. 

Int.  5(37. — How  long  were  you  there  in  1853,  and  how  long 
Avcre  vou  there  in  18G0? 

Ans. — I  think  over  niiidit  in  each  case  ;  certainly  on  the 
latter  occasion. 

Jnt.  -'f^iS. — Do  you  know,  of  your  own  knowledge,  Avherc 
the  usual  landings  wore  for  steamers  and  batteaux  before  18(30? 

Anit. — Only  from  the  fact  of  our  own  landing  in  1853  in  boats. 

Jnt.  5(.'1>. — Did  a  part  of  the  jMcClellan  expedition  go  down 
the  river,  in  1853,  in  boats? 

Ans. — It  did. 

Int.  57(). — In  1860  were  you  any  longer  at  the  portage  of 
the  Dalles  than  the  time  required  to  land  from  the  steamer  at 
the  landing,  pass  directly  from  the  landing  to  the  town  at  the 
Dalles,  pass  the  night  at  the  iiotel,  and  go  from  there  to  tho 
steamboat  landing,  and  embark  the  next  morning? 

Ans. — I  think  not. 


508 


Int.  K>1\. — Were  you  in  1860  anything  more  than  a  passen- 
ger on  the  travelled  route  by  steamers  down  the  river,  going 
through  with  the  utmost  expedition  that  travellers  could  be 
carried  on  that  route  ? 

Am. — Nothing. 

Int.  bl'l. — How  long  were  you  at  the  Cascades  at  the  time 
you  think  you  were  there  in  1855  ? 

Ans. — Not  over  a  day. 

Int.  573. — Did  you  notice  any  steai  i  "  •'"  ^-r  ^■-'itcaux  land 
at,  or  freight  crossing  the  portage,  at  the  time  you  were  there 
in  1855  ? 

Ans. — I  recollect  none  but  the  boat  I  was  in. 

Int.  574. — Was  there  any  freight  passing  over  the  portage 
when  you  were  there  in  1853,  except  that  of  the  McClellan 
expedition? 

Ans. — That  I  can't  say. 

Int.  575. — Was  not  the  height  of  the  Kettle  Falls  at  the 
main  fall  some  twenty  feet  ? 

Ans. — Perhaps  so. 

Int.  576. — What  stream  in  that  country,  except  that  on 
which  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  mill  is  located,  near  Col- 
vile,  affords  a  good  water-power  ? 

Ans. — I  will  instance  two — the  Spokane,  and  the  Nehoial- 
pitkwu. 

Int.  577. — How  far  from  Colvile  is  the  water-power  on  the 
Spokane,  and  how  far  from  Colvile  is  the  water-power  on  the 
Nehoialpitkwu  ? 

Ans. — The  falls  of  the  Spokane  are  fifty  or  sixty  miles; 
those  of  the  Nehoialpitkwu,  twenty-five  or  thirty.  There  is  also 
another  fall  on  that  branch  of  the  Mill  river  on  which  the 
United  States  military  post  is  situated,  ten  or  twelve  miles 
from  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  post  at  Colvile,  which  I 
should  judge  to  be  equally  good. 

Int.  578. — In  what  direction  from  Colvile  is  the  Nehoialpit- 
kwu river,  what  was  the  stage  of  the  water  in  the  river  at  the 
time  you  saw  the  power,  what  was  the  height  of  the  fall,  and 
how  wide  was  the  river,  and  what  depth  of  water  did  it  carry, 
and  into  what  stream  did  it  empty  ? 


509 


^alls  at  the 


A)is. — Directly  west  of  Colvilc;  the  water  was  at  an  ordinary 
low  stage;  the  river  fordahle  for  animals  belly  deep;  the  fall 
about  twenty  feet,  if  I  recollect  right;  the  stream  1  judge  to 
be  fifty  yards  wide,  though  narrowed  at  that  point.  It  falls 
into  the  Columbia. 

Inf.  .071). — Is  not  this  stream  difficult  to  get  at  by  common 
travel  at  tlio  falls,  and  surrounded  by  a  hilly  or  mountainous 
country  ? 

Ans. — At  the  time  of  my  visit  no  wagon  road  had  been 
opened  there.  The  valley  was  bordered  by  hills  on  either 
side,  covered  with  forests,  except  the\alley  of  the  river,  in 
which  are  prairies  next  in  value  to  those  at  Fort  Colvile. 

Int.  580. — How  wide  is  the  valley  for  ten  miles  above  and 
below  the  falls  ? 

Ans. — That  I  could  not  say  without  looking  at  th)  survey 
of  it. 

Int.  581. — Were  you  ever  at  the  falls  of  Spokane  that  you 
have  mentioned? 

Ans. — I  was  not. 

Int.  582. — Is  not  the  power  on  Mill  creek,  near  the  Govern- 
ment post,  wtthin  a  few  miles  of  the  head  of  that  stream  ? 

Ans. — It  is,  I  suppose,  within  a  few  miles  of  the  head  of 
that  branch  of  the  stream. 

Ini.  583. — Is  not  the  Avhole  of  that  country  on  the  plateau, 
for  a  long  distance  to  the  south  of  Fort  Colvile,  and  north  and 
east  of  it,  and  part  of  the  country  west,  suitable  for  grazing 
purposes,  and  for  the  extensive  raising  of  sheep? 

Ans. — In  the  first  place  the  plateau  lies  south  of  the  Spo- 
kane river,  and  I  consider  it  an  inferior  grazing  country,  and 
unsuitable  for  sheep  from  its  climate.  As  to  the  country  north 
and  ea-  of  Colvile,  I  know  of  none  suitable  either  for  cattle 
or  sheep,  excepting  the  narrow  valley  of  the  Kootenay  river. 

Int.  584. — Is  not  what  was  called  the  Colvile  Valley  itself 
valuable  for  agricultural  purposes? 

Ans. — It  is,  but  its  extent  is  very  limited. 

Int.  585. — In  speaking  of  the  roads,  you  have  stated  that 
the  Company  used  the  Indian  trails,  do  you  not  know  the  fact 
that  Indians  did  not  have  much  communication  with  each  other, 


510 


!in<l  knew  hut  small  portions  of  the  conntrr,  as  a  rjoiioviil  nilc 
that  wore  inhahitod  hy  the  tribes  to  which  tlicy  belonged? 

Ans. — yio,  that  is  not  the  fact. 

Int.  O'SO. — AVorc  you  not  a  member  of  General  McClellan's 
expedition,  and  is  not  his  report  carefully  prepared,  and  the 
statements  therein  to  be  considered  accurat<;  and  true? 

Anfi. — I  was  a  member  of  that  expedition;  the  report  wn? 
I  know,  carefully  prepared,  and  the  statements  therein  accu- 
rate and  true,  so  far  as  his  knowledge  went. 

I)it.  5S7. — Is  this  statement  from  General  McClellan's  re- 
port correct:  "Guides  we  took  from  place  to  place,  as  we 
could  find  them;  for  even  among  the  Indians  there  were  none 
who  knew  more  than  small  portions  of  the  country  we  trav- 
ersed?" 

Ans. — Captain  McClellan  was  under  a  mistake  as  to  tlio 
motives  which  actuated  the  guides.  Their  jealousy  of  one 
another  is  such,  that  each  tribe  is  unwilling  that  members  of 
another  should  convey  strangers  through  their  lands.  Thar, 
however,  they  do  know  extended  tracts  of  country  may  be 
inferred  from  the  fact  that  one  of  our  guides,  mIio  came  from 
the  Yakama  country,  left  us  at  Colvile,  on  hi.?  way  to  the 
Buffalo  Range,  east  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  whither  a  nuu:- 
ber  of  his  people  had  already  gone. 

Int.  5Sf^. — Would  not  traversing  the  Indian  country  by  large 
parties  of  a  trading  company,  engaged  in  supplying  the  Indians 
with  goods,  cause  the  Indians  who  accompanied  the  trains  to 
become  better  acquainted  with  the  Company  and  the  other 
tribes? 

Ans. — Undoubtedlv. 

Int.  580. — After  the  treaty  of  1846,  would  not  the  control 
and  influence  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  over  the  Indians 
south  of  4'Jth  degree  be  materially  diminished,  and,  to  use 
your  own  language,  would  not  "the  sceptre  depart  from 
Judah?" 

A71S. — In  those  parts  of  the  country  occupied  by  the  Ameri- 
cans this  would  un([uestionab1y  be  so. 

I:it.  500. — You  have  stated  in  your  report  that  some  Indians 


511 


'  tiie  Amcri- 


wcrc  rich  in  horses;  the  price  of  the  horses  of  what  trihe  \fere 
worth  from  $40  to  j^lOO? 

A)ix. — The  horses  I  spoke  of  were,  I  presume,  Nez  Forces 
and  Walla- Walla. 

Int.  591. — Is  your  statement  in  your  report  correct  where, 
in  si)oakiiig  of  horses,  you  say  the  best  arc  those  belonging  to 
the  Cay  use  and  Nez  Perces? 

Ann. — -The  best  that  I  saw  did. 

Int.  502. — Did  you  see  the  horses  of  Piu-piu-mox-mox  in 
the  fall  of  18.33? 

Ana. — Most  probably. 

Int.  50-3. — Was  not  "this  man  a  chief  of  the  Cayuse  or  Walla- 
Wallas? 

Ans. — I  think  he  was  a  Walla-Walla. 

Int.  594. — Where  was  Dr.  McLoughlin  when  he  made  this 
statement  to  you  in  reference  to  the  indebtedness  of  citizens 
to  him,  and  when  was  it? 

Ans. —  At  his  own  liouse,  and  prior  to  the  preparation  of  my 
report  to  McClellan,  as  I  had  there  referred  to  it. 

Jilt.  595. — Can  you  not  give  the  time  of  this  conversation 
more  distinctly? 

Ans, — I  cannot.  I  called  upon  Dr.  McLoughlin  whenever 
I  was  in  Oregon  City.  It  may  have  taken  place  at  one  or 
more  numerous  visits. 

Lit  596. — Did  Dr.  McLoughlin  tell  you  that  the  settlers 
owed  him  personally  $30,000? 

Ans. — I  so  distinctly  understood  him. 

Int.  597. — Was  he  the  author  of  the  statement  you  have 
made  concerning  a  Molele  war? 

Ans. — He  may  very  possibly  have  spoken  of  it  among  others. 

Int.  598. — When  did  this  Molele  war  occur,  and  with  what 
tribe  of  Indians,  and  how  many  whites  were  killed  in  it? 

Ans. — It  happened,  I  believe,  a  year  or  two  before  I  came 
into  the  country.  The  Indians  engaged  were  the  Molele  tribe, 
inhabiting  the  eastern  side  of  the  Willamette  Valley  and  the 
Cascade  i-ange.  The  number  of  killed  and  wounded  on  both 
sides,  I  believe,  was  very  small. 
33  H 


612 


Int.  599. — Was  it  aiiytliing  more  than  a  short  quarrel  be- 
tween a  very  small  tribe  of  Indians  and  the  whites? 

Ann. — No;  the  Indians  were  but  few,  but  plucky. 
^'  Int.  COO. — Were  not  interrogatories  42,  as  to  Dr.  McLough- 
lin's  statement  of  indebtedness  of  citizens  to  him;  41,  as-  to 
value  of  Kettle  Falls  for  manufacturing  purj)oses;  40,  as  to 
obstruction  of  portages  of  the  Columbia;  and  .39,  as  to  the 
Company's  policy  in  regard  to  the  Indians,  asked  by  yourself 
and  dictated  by  you  ? 

Ans. — They  were  all  prepared  and  written  out  by  myself, 
and  answered  by  myself. 

Int.  601. — Is  this  Interrogatory  48  also  one  of  3'^ours;  "Do 
you  know  any  other  matter  touching  the  claim  of  tiic  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  against  the  United  States,  or  is  there  any  ex- 
planation which  you  wish  to  make?" 

Ans. — It  Avas. 

Int.  G02. — Did  you  not  receive  from  the  Secretary  of  State 
of  the  United  States  a  statement  that  your  action  in  refusing 
to  allow  the  Prince  of  Wales  to  take  Judge  Strong's  freight  up 
the  river  was  disapproved  of? 

Ana. — Instructions  came  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
in  regard  to  that  matter,  directing,  if  I  recollect  right,  that  no 
interference  with  the  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
under  the  treaty  should  take  place;  inferentially,  I  presume, 
disapproving  of  what  had  been  done. 

Cross- Examination  Resumed.  July  10,  1867. 

Int.  603. — In  what  instance  was  it  that  you  incurred  a  dan- 
gerous responsibility  in  granting  a  permit? 

Ans. — In  the  case  of  the  Victory,  Captain  Ryan. 

Int.  004. — How  came  you  to  grant  this  permit  to  the  Vic- 
tory for  the  goods  belonging  to  thvT  Company  and  those  be- 
longing to  otiier  parties  on  board  the  vessel? 

Ans. — From  the  exigency  of  the  case,  there  being  no  ware- 
house at  the  port  of  entry  where  the  goods  could  be  stored. 

Int.  605. — What  became  of  the  goods  belonging  to  other 
parties  on  the  Victory;  where  were  they  landed? 


513 


Ana. — The  vessel  was  consigned  to  the  Company.  I  pre- 
sume all  the  goods  on  board  belonged  to  them  or  their  people, 

Int.  600. — Where  did  the  vessels  from  foreign  ports  that  you 
say  passed  the  bar  of  the  Columbia  river,  during  the  year 
1850,  discharge  their  cargo  ? 

Ana. — I  do  not  think  any  vessel  from  foreign  parts  arrived 
during  that  year,  except  the  Mary  Dare,  from  the  Sandwich 
Islands,  also  consigned  to  the  Company,  and  she  was  allowed 
to  go  to  Vancouver. 

Int.  607. — Where  did  the  vessels  that  arrived  during  the 
year  1850  from  the  Sandwich  Islands  discharge  their  cargo? 

Ans. — I  have  already  said  that  I  recollect  but  one  vessel 
from  the  Sandwich  Islands. 

Int.  608. — Have  you  not  elsewhere  stated  that  there  were 
one  or  two  vessels  entered  from  the  Sandwich  Islands  ? 

Ana. — I  have. 

Int.  609. — When  did  the  French  vessels  go  up  the  river  to 
load  above  Astoria  ? 

Ana. — Before  I  arrived  there. 

Int.  610. — During  your  term  of  service  as  deputy  collector 
and  collector,  do  you  recollect  that  any  vessel  coming  from 
foreign  ports  with  dutiable  goods  on  board,  deUined  for  Port- 
land, was  allowed  to  pass  up  the  river  and  discharge  her  freight 
at  that  place,  under  the  supervision  of  an  inspector  or  other 
proper  oflScer  of  the  custom-house? 

Ana. — None  that  I  remember  from  foreign  ports. 

Int.  611. — Do  you  remember  any  vessel  from  foreign  ports, 
during  the  time  specified,  discharging  dutiable  goods  at  Asto- 
ria? 

Ans. — No. 

Int.  612. — Do  you  now  distinctly  state  that  within  your 
recollection,  while  you  were  discharging  the  duties  of  deputy 
collector  and  collector,  there  was  no  instance  in  which  »n  in- 
spector or  other  proper  oflScer  of  customs  accompanies'  :i.  •  jssel 
to  Portland,  for  the  purpose  of  supervising  the  discharge  of 
the  goods  subject  to  duty  of  her  cargo? 

Ana. — No,  I  don't;  I  recollect  one  case  of  an  Auierican  ves- 
sel bringing  bonded  goods  from  San  Francisco. 


514 


Titt.  01. ^. — Did  nn  inspector  accompany  this  vessol  to  Port- 
land ? 

Ann. — T  don't  remember. 

Int.  (514. — Were  those  bonded  goods  landed  at  Astoria? 

Ann. — They  were  not. 

Int.  (Jl.'j. — Do  not  tho  regulations  of  the  rcvonnc  service 
require  that  a  proper  officer  of  the  customs  should  be  present 
when  dutiable  goods  are  landed? 

Anif. — I  believe  they  do. 

Int.  61G. — Did  these  bonded  good?  pass  up  the  river  Aviiile 
you  were  deputy  collector  or  collector? 

Ana, — I  really  do  not  remember  at  which  time. 

Int.  C17. — Where  were  tho  duties  paid? 

An». — I  suppose  at  the  custom-house. 

Int.  G18. — Were  they  paid  before  tho  vessel  went  up  the 
river  or  afterwards? 

Ans. — Tliat  is  more  than  I  can  tell. 

Int.  G19. — Why  did  you  incur  the  responsibility  of  giving 
credit  for  duties  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  as  you  have 
Stated  in  your  answer  to  Interrogatory  43? 

Ans. — As  a  matter  of  comity,  and  from  circumstanc  arising 
out  of  the  condition  of  the  country. 

Int.  620. — What  were  those  circumstances  ? 

An». — The  fact  that  population  was  almost  entirely  seated 
above  Astoria. 

Int.  621. — In  1850,  was  not  time  given  to  the  Company  only 
in  some  instances,  and  that  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  them 
to  collect  the  necessary  gold  coin  to  pay  the  duties  in,  the 
ordinary  currency  of  the  country  at  that  time  being  coin  of 
almost  every  kind? 

Ans. — The  ordinary  currency  of  the  country  at  the  time 
was  gold  dust,  coin  of  every  kind  being  scarce.  I  know  that 
the  Company  had  not  coin  at  all  times,  but  that  was  no  busi- 
ness of  the  collector. 

Int.  622. — Did  you  not,  as  a  part  of  your  now  erased  answer 

to  Interrogatory  601,  state  that  there  was  but  one  case  in  which 

you  had  any  remembrance  whether  credit  was  desired  or  not, 

'  and  that  was  the  case  in  which  a  considerable  amount  of  duties 


615 


sel  to  Port- 


mc"     irising 


was  to  bo  paid;  and  afterwards,  in  answer  to  an  inte.-r();5;itory 
now  oriijjod,  stated  that  answer  to  refer  to  the  Victory  'i  Was 
that  the  one  instaiAco  in  which  you  reinanSer  crulit  to  have 
been  asked  and  given,  and  was  that  tiio  Victory'!' 

Ann. — I  caused  that  portion  of  the  answer  to  bo  erased 
before  coi. eluding  my  re[)ly,  because,  upon  reflection,  I  do  not 
feel  justified  in  speaking  positivcjly  of  tlio  details  of  tr^nnac- 
tions  occurring  at  that  distance  of  time,  in  which  there  may 
have  been  some  complication,  and  which  I  have  since  had  no 
occasion  to  recall. 

Int.  023. — Did  you  not  also  say,  and  cause  to  be  erased,  in 
answer  to  Interrogatory  631,  that  eventually  but  a  part  of  the 
duties  were  paid  in  coin  ?  Is  it  or  is  it  not  true  that  the  duties  on 
foreign  goods  on  vessels  entering  at  the  custom-house  in  1850 
were  paid  in  coin,  or  not? 

Aiis. — I  believe  all  duties  were  paid  in  coin,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  part  of  those  of  the  Company. 

Int.  024. — Do  you  wish  now  to  change  or  modify  in  on.y 
respect,  in  view  of  your  late  answers,  your  answer  to  cross- 
interrogatory  83,  when,  in  speaking  of  ihe  duties  on  the  goods 
carried  in  the  five  or  six  vessels  that  entered  the  Columbia 
river  during  your  time  as  deputy  collector,  between  January 
1,  1850,  and  the  spring  of  1851,  when  you  left,  in  answer  to 
that  Interrogatory  83 — "Were  the  duties  on  the  goods  carried 
on  these  five  or  six  vessels  paid  in  money  ?" — you  say,  "They 
were,  except  that  time  was  given  in  some  cases  to  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  to  collect  the  necessary  amount  in  such 
coin  as  the  law  required,  gold  dust  not  being  receivable,  and 
the  ordinary  currency  of  the  country  including  coins  of  al- 
most every  kind  and  every  nation  ?" 

Ans. — I  should  explain  that  in  reference  to  the  currency, 
gold  dust  was  in  common  use  in  all  ordinary  transactions  ; 
that  that  could  not  be  taken  in  payment  of  duties  ;  and  that 
American  gold  or  American  coin  of  any  sfirt  was  difficult  to 
obtain.  Most  of  the  coin  in  the  country  was  foreign,  and  not 
receivable.     For  the  rest,  I  see  nothing  to  modify. 

Int.  625. — State  a  single  instance,  if  you  can,  in  which, 
under  the  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States,  a  forfeiture  migb* 


k 


m 


il 


516 

have  beeii  exacted  of  the  vessel,  or  property,  or  goods  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  by  which  money  could  have  been 
made,  and  which,  during  your  term  of  service  as  custom-house 
of?cer,  was  passed  by  or  omitted  ? 

Ans. — The  vessel,  I  think  was  the  Cadboro,  from  Victoria 
to  Nisqually.  At  any  rate,  it  was  one  of  the  Company's  ves- 
sels that  took  goods  to  Nisqually  without  previous  notice  or 
entry. 

Int.  626. — How  was  this  vessel  finally  released  ? 

An8. — As  I  remember,  on  payment  of  duties,  and  an  agree- 
ment on  the  part  of  the  Company  to  make  returns  in  future. 

Int.  627. — How  early  in  your  time  of  service  as  deputy 
collector  was  this  vessel  se'zed? 

Ans. — I  do  not  now  recollect. 

Int.  628. — When  was  the  custom-housi-^  at  Astoria  opened? 

Ans. — I  think  General  Adair  arrived  there  early  in  1849. 

Int.  629. — How  long  before  your  arrival  at  Astoria  had 
vessels  made  entry  in  the  custom-house? 

Ans, — I  believe  at  least  as  early  as  the  preceding  June. 

Int.  630. — Was  the  collector,  General  Adair,  at  Astoria, 
when  you  forbade  the  master  of  the  Prince  of  Wales  to  take 
Judge  Strong's  freight  on  board? 

Ans. — I  think  he  was,  but  am  not  positive. 

Int.  631. — Did  he  direct  the  writing  of  the  letter  forbidding 
this  freight  to  be  taken,  or  did  you  act  in  that  matter  on  your 
own  responsibility? 

Ans. — That  I  can't  say.  The  letter  is  written  on  the  part 
of  the  collector,  and,  I  suppose,  by  his  authority,  although 
signed  by  me.  If  he  wei*^  at  Astoria  I  should  not  have  written 
it  without  his  approbation. 

Int.  632. — Where  had  the  United  States  District  Attorney, 
Holbrook,  come  from  at  the  time  you  wrote  this  letter ;  how 
long  had  he  been  at  that  point,  and  what  was  his  business 
there  ? 

Ans. — The  Prince  of  Wales  had  been  forbidden  by  me  as 
early  as  the  10th  of  March  preceding  from  being  employed  in 
any  other  than  the  actual  service  of  the  Company,  and  from 
navigating  the  Willamette  river,  as  I  informed  Gov.  Ogden  in 


517 


a  letter  or  postcript  of  that  date.  Mr.  Holbrook  was  then 
present.  It  was  to  that  date,  and  not  to  the  date  of  the 
August  letter  that  I  refer.  He  had,  I  think,  just  arrived  from 
San  Francisco. 

Jnt.  633. — Do  you  wish  new  to  state  that  Mr.  Holbrook  was 
not  present  when  the  order  to  the  master  of  the  Prince  of 
Wales  was  issued? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  whether  he  was  or  not. 

Int.  634. — Have  you  not  once  stated  in  your  explanation  of 
your  order  to  her  master  not  to  take  freight,  that  District 
Attorney  Holbrook  was  present,  and  that  you  acted  under  his 
advice? 

Ans. — He  was  present,  and  I  acted  by  his  advice  when  I 
issued  the  original  order  or  rather  notice  that  she  could  not 
enter  upon  other  than  the  trade  of  the  Company,  which  he 
attempted  to  infringe  on  this  occasion,  and  that  was  what  I 
intended  to  state. 

Int.  635. —  You  now  state,  then,  that  Mr.  Holbrook,  the 
United  States  district  attorney,  was  not  present  when  the 
order  for  the  master  of  the  Prince  of  Wales  was  issued? 

Ans. — No;  I  totd  you  I  did  not  remember  anything  about 
that. 

Int.  636. — If  you  did  not  remember  anything  about  it,  why 
did  you  state,  in  your  explanation  in  answer  to  Interrogatory 
43,  that  "  Mr.  Holbrook,  the  United  States  District  Attorney, 
was  present  when  the  order  to  her  (referring  to  the  Prince  of 
Wales)  master  was  issued?" 

Ans. — The  statement  is  incorrect  as  far  as  it  expresses  the 
order  given  to  her  master.  I  should  have  said  the  instructions 
to  Mr.  Ogden,  though  I  may  have  given  an  order  to  her  master 
at  that  time  also. 

Int.  637. — How  did  Mr.  Holbrook  n  'd  Mr.  Dorr  go  up  the 
river  about  the  10th  of  March,  1850? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember. 

Int.  638. — Was  not  your  explanation  of  the  Prince  of  Wales 
matter  made  in  view  of  the  correspondence  put  on  file  by  the 
Company  in  this  case,  and  printed  as  a  part  of  their  testimony, 
and  had  you,  at  the  time  you  made  this  explanation,  rccolleo- 


518 


tion  of  any  other  letter  or  correspondence  other  than  that  so 
printed? 

Ans. — It  was  made  in  view  of  this  correspondence,  and  of 
this  only. 

I7it.  639. — Was  not  the  interest  of  a  thousand  dollars  in  the 
steamer  referred  to  in  your  ansA\\jr,  to  be  paid  for  by  you  out 
of  the  profits  of  your  share,  and  was  not  the  share  allotted  to 
you  on  account  of  your  supposed  influence  as  deputy  collector 
and,  practically,  collector  of  that  district? 

Ati8. — It  was  not  necessarily  to  have  been  paid  for  out  of 
the  profits,  nor  was  it  so  allotted  to  my  knowledge. 

Int.  640. — If  not  necessarily  to  have  been  paid  for  out  of 
the  profits,  was  it  not  in  contemplation  of  parties  interested 
that  your  share  of  one  thousand  [dollars]  would  be  paid  out  of 
the  profits  ? 

An8. — 1  cannot  say  what  others  may  have  contemplated  in 
relation  thereto.  In  respect  to  myself,  I  certainly  expected 
her  to  be  profitable,  and  that  those  profits  would  go  at  any 
rate  in  part  payment. 

Int.  641. — Did  the  steamer  prove  to  be  a  profitable  invest- 
ment? 

Arts, — I  think  she  did,  to  some  of  the  parties. 

Int.  642. — Did  she  prove  to  be  a  profitable  investment  when 
she  was  running  from  Astoria  up  the  river,  before  your  con- 
nection with  her  ceased? 

Ans. — My  connection  with  her  was  a  very  short  one.  I 
hardly  know  whether  it  lasted  more  than  a  week  or  two  ;  and 
as  to  her  profits  during  the  time  I  cs»nnot  say.  I  wish  to  state, 
in  addition  to  a  former  reply,  that  I  had  acted  as  clerk  to  the 
Company  during  the  time  of  her  building,  and  that,  doubtless, 
was  one  motive  in  giving  me  the  refusal  of  the  share. 

Int.  643. — Did  not  your  name  appear  on  her  register  as  one 
of  the  owners  ? 

Ans. — I  have  already  answered  that  question. 

Int.  644. — What  was  the  answer  that  you  then  made  ? 

Ans. — That  I  did  not  remember. 

Int.  645. — Would  not  the  register  for  that  vessel  have  been 
issued  by  yourself,  though  signed  by  the  Collector? 

Ans. — It  would. 


519 


Cross- Examination  Resumed,  July  11,  18G7. 


I  for  out  of 


able  iiivest- 


Int.  G4G. — Have  you  not  in  this  language  of  your  explana- 
tion, "  P'or  the  rest,  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  wore  not  enti- 
tled by  the  treaty  to  the  navigation  of  the  Wiilainette,"  given 
your  opinion  as  a  lawyer  on  the  construction  of  the  treaty, 
and  not  testified  to  a  fact  derived  from  your  own  personal  ob- 
servation ? 

Ans. — I  have  given  the  opinion  under  which  I  acted. 

Int.  647. — Is  that  your  opinion  ? 

Ans. — It  is. 

Int.  648. — Did  the  French  ships  which  you  mention  in  your 
explanation  pay  their  duties  before  they  went  up  the  river? 

Avs. — One  (lid  not  pay,  at  least,  all  her  duties.  As  to  the 
other,  I  know  nothing  about  it,  except  that  there  was  some 
correction  subsequently  made. 

Int.  649. — Wore  you  there  when  the  French  ships  arrived? 

Ans. — They  had  both  arrived  before  I  readied  the  country. 

Int.  650. — Does  the  law  of  the  United  States  authorize  the 
collector  of  a  newly-constituted  district  for  the  collection  of 
customs  to  allow  a  vessel  from  a  foreign  port  to  unload,  that 
took  her  departure  from  that  port  not  knowing  the  existence 
of  that  port  of  entry,  above  the  port  and  to  navigate  Ameri- 
can waters? 

Ans. — I  do  not  propose  to  enter  into  an  arguuieut  upon  the 
laws  of  the  United  States. 

Int.  651. — Were  the  Hudson's  Bay  vessels  coasters  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not  consider  them  such. 

Int.  'o-'yl. — Did  they  bring  in  dutiable  goods? 

Ans. — They  did. 

Int.  653. — Were  there  any  warehouses  at  Astoria  while  you 
were  deputy  collector  there? 

Ans. — There  was  one,  but  not  suitable  for  storing  goods. 

Int.  654. — What  distinction,  then,  can  you  make  between 
the  case  of  the  French  ships  and  the  vessels  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  except  that  the  latter  left  France  not  knowing 
of  a  port  of  entry  at  Astoria  ? 


520 


Ans. — The  statement  refers  simply  to  the  Willamette  river, 
of  which  Mr.  Ogden  complains.  The  Prince  of  Wales  was  not 
admitted  to  navigate  it,  while  the  French  ships  were — the 
Prince  of  Wales  attempting  thereby  to  establish  a  coasting 
trade  between  Astoria  and  that  river. 

Int.  655. — Did  not  General  Adair  incur  the  same  dangerous 
responsibility,  as  collector,  in  granting  the  permit  to  the 
French  vessels  and  giving  a  partial  credit  for  the  duties  to 
one  of  them,  that  you  say  you  did  in  reference  to  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  vessel  ? 

Ans. — Of  course. 

Int.  650. — Have  you  not,  in  the  preparation  and  calling  of 
witnesses,  and  in  the  defence  of  this  case,  acted  in  the  same 
manner  as  you  have  stated  you  did  in  the  defence  of  the  case 
of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  except  so  far  as 
your  own  evidence  in  this  case  is  concerned,  in  reference  to 
certain  interrogatories? 

Ans. — Certainly  I  have. 

George  Gibbs. 


Direct  examination  resumed  this  11th  day  of  August,  1867,  of 

Mr.  George  Gibbs. 

Int.  1. — Do  you  desire  to  make  any  explanation  or  modi- 
fication of  any  part  of  your  testimony ;  if  so,  please  to  make 
the  same? 

Ans.  Yes,  sir ;  on  examination  of  retained  copies  of  some 
custom-house  papers,  made  while  I  was  deputy  collector  in  the 
year  1850,  and  which  I  have  looked  over  since  my  cross-ex- 
amination, I  find  that  I  was  mistaken  in  sayirg  that  certain 
parcels  of  goods  imported  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
were  taken  first  to  Fort  Vancouver,  and  thence  transported  to 
Victoria.  Inspection  of  these  papers  shows  that  the  goods 
were  taken  to  Victoria  in  the  first  place  in  the  annual  ship 
from  London,  and  that  such  portions  of  them  as  were  fitted 
for  the  Oregon  market  were  sent  thence  to  Vancouver.    I  will 


521 

also  state  that  I  may  have  confounded  the  Prince  of  Wales 
with  some  other  vessel  belonging  to  the  Company,  in  respect 
to  her  having  left  the  Columbia  river,  as  I  do  not  find  her 
name  among  the  clearances  and  entrances. 

.George  Gibbs. 


Further  interrogatories  addressed  to  George  Gibhs  on  heJialf  of 

the   United  States. 

Int.  1. — In  the  27th  interrogatory  you  refer  to  certain  pho- 
tographs. Please  examine  the  two  now  presented  to  you  and 
say  whether  they  are  or  are  not  the  same  referred  to  in  that 
interrogatory. 

Ans. — They  are.     They  are  marked  C  and  D. 

George  Gibbs. 

Washington,  August  24,  1867. 


Examination  in  chief  of  G.   C.   Gardner  resumed  February 

loth,  1867. 


Int.  1. — Look  at  these  photographs  now  exhibited  to  you, 
and  marked  copy  of  "A"  and  copy  of  "B,"  and  say  whether 
they  are  correct  copies  of  the  photographs  which  were 
marked  "A"  and  "B,"  and  shown  you  at  the  time  you  gave 
your  answers  to  Interrogatories  9  and  14  of  your  direct  ex- 
amination? 

Ans. — They  are. 

G.  Clinton  Gardner. 

February  15,  1867. 


Further  Interrogatories  addressed  to  George  Clinton  Gardner 
on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  August  23, 
1867. 

Int.  1. — Please  to  examine  the  photograph  exhibited  to 
you  and  state  whether  or  no  you  recognize  it  as  representing 
any  object  which  you  have  ever  seen.     (Annexed,  marked  E.) 

Ans. — I  recollect  it  as  a  photograph  of  houses  which  stand 
to  the  north  of  Fort  Col  vile,  about  the  same  distance  from  the 
bank  of  the  river  Columbia  as  the  Fort,  and  not  a  great  dis- 
tance from  the  Fort. 

G.  Clinton  Gardner. 


District  of  Columbia,  "I 
County  of  Washington.  / 

I,  Nicholas  Callan,  a  Notary  Public,  in  and  for  the  county 
and  district  aforesaid,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing 
depositions  hereto  attached,  of  William  B.  McMurtrie,  Wil- 
liam Gibson,  Gordon  Granger,  Sylvester  Mowry,  William  J. 
Terry,  John  F.  Noble,  George  Gibbs,  and  George  Clinton 
Gardner,  witnesses  produced  by  and  on  behalf  of  the  United 
States,  as  also  the  cross-examination  of  Edward  J.  Allen,  a 
witness  previously  examined  in  chief  before  Samuel  H.  Hunt- 
ington, clerk  of  the  Court  of  Claims,  in  the  matter  of  the 
claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  United 
States,  now  pending  before  the  British  and  American  Joint 
Commission  for  the  final  adjustment  thereof,  were  taken  and 
reduced  toMvriting  in  the  said  city  of  Washington,  under  my 
direction,  by  a  person  agreed  upon  by  Charles  C.  Beaman,  jr., 
Esq.,  attorney  for  the  United  States,  and  Edward  Lander, 
Esq.,  attorney  for  the  said  Company,  commencing  with  the 
second  day  of  May  and  ending  with  the  twenty-third  day  of 
August,  1807,  according  to  the  dates  of  the  several  depositions 
when  they  were  respectively  signed. 


523 


I  further  certify  that  to  each  of  said  witnesses  before  his 
examination,  I  administered  the  following  oatli: 

"You  swear  that  the  evidence  you  shall  give  in  the  matter 
of  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the 
United  States  of  America,  shall  be  the  truth,  tlic  whole  truth, 
and  nothing  but  the  truth :    so  help  you  God." 

And,  that  after  the  same  was  reduced  to  writing  the  depo- 
sition of  each  witness  was  carefully  read  to  and  then  signed 
by  him  in  the  presence  of  the  counsel  for  claimants  and  de- 
fendants. 

I  further  certify  that  the  map  marked  "  A.  W.  W.  B.,"  at- 
tached to  the  deposition  of  said  William  B.  McMurtrie,  and 
the  photographs  marked  C,  D,  and  E,  attachc<l  to  the  several 
depositions  of  George  Gibbs  and  G.  Clinton  Gardner  are  the 
ones  therein  respectively  referred  to. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
official  seal  tliis  24th  day  of  August,  1807. 

Nicholas  Cat.lan, 
Notary  Public. 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION 


ON    THE 


HUDSON'S   BAY   AND   PUGET'S   SOUND  AGRICUL- 
TURAL  COMPANIES'   CLAIMS. 


In  the  matter  of  tJte  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
against  the  United  Slates. 


Deposition  of  Rufus  Ingalls,  Assistant  Quartermaster  General, 
Brevet  Major  General,  U.  S.  Army,  duly  sworn  accord- 
ing to  law,  and  examined  in  the  city  of  New  York,  State 
of  New  York,  by  virtue  of  an  agreement  between  Charles 
C.  Beaman,  jr.,  agent  and  attorney  for  the  United  States 
of  America,  and  Edward  Lander,  agent  and  attorney  for 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  before  me,  W.  H.  Gardner, 
a  notary  public  in  and  for  the  State  of  New  York,  duly 
commissioned  and  sworn,  on  the  part  of  the  United  Statet^. 

Testimony  of  Bvt.  Maj.  Gen.  Ingalls. 

Int.  1. — Will  you  describe  Fort  Vancouver,  post  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company? 

Alls. — I  first  saw  the  post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at 
Vancouver  in  May,  1849,  at  which  time  it  was  about  its  height 
of  prosperity.  The  post  itself  was  surrounded  by  a  stockade 
of  probably  some  eighteen  hundred  feet  in  length.  The  prin- 
cipal buildings  were  within  the  stockade,  and  consisted  of  such 
as  were  described  in  my  former  examination. 

Int.  2, — Whether  or  no  you  ever  built  any  buildings  near 
Fort  Vancouver  ?     If  so,  what  ones? 

(Objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Ans. — I  did.  I  commenced  building  at  Fort  Vancouver  in 
he  same  year,  (1849,)  and  built  what  ia  known  as  the  military 


525 


post  at  Fort  Vancouver  in  1850 ;  and  was  engaged  in  building 
and  repairing  buildings  for  several  years  afterwards.  All  the 
buildings  at  the  different  military  posts  in  Oregon  and  Wash- 
ington Territory  were  erected  under  my  supervision. 

Int.  3. — Give  a  comparative  estimate  of  the  number  and 
capacity  of  the  buildings  at  the 'military  post  of  Fort  Van- 
couver, as  compared  with  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  post 
of  the  same  name. 

(Objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Ans. — In  1850,  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  establishment, 
as  to  buildings,  was  more  extensive,  probably,  than  at  any 
other  time.  In  the  autumn  of  that  year  the  military  post  at 
Fort  Vancouver  consisted  of  ten  sets,  with  kitchens  and  out- 
buildings to  correspond,  and  three  or  four  sets  of  barracks. 
I  considered  that  the  post  was  worth  as  much,  and  had  cost 
more,  than  the  trading-post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at 
that  place. 

Int.  4. — Will  you  please  state  under  what  circumstances  the 
military  post  was  erected,  and  what  was  its  cost? 

(Objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

An%. — It  was  the  first  military  post  established  in  that  coun- 
try. It  was  located  at  Vancouver  upon  the  advice  and  with 
the  consent  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  as  represented  in 
the  person  of  Peter  Skene  Ogden,  chief  factor  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company,  in  charge  at  that  place.  It  was  also  con- 
sidered the  most  central  location  for  the  distribution  of  supplies. 
The  object  of  troops  at  that  point  was  for  general  protection. 
In  a  report  which  I  made  about  that  time,  after  a  detailed 
examination,  the  cost  of  the  public  buildings  was  tifty  thousand 
dollars.  The  post,  however,  had  been  bniit  when  the  cost  of 
labor  and  material  was  highest.  Mechanics,  for  instance,  were 
paid  eight  dollars  per  day,  and  lumber  from  sixty  to  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty-five  dollars  per  thousand,  while  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company's  post  was  constructed  at  leisure,  and  when 
labor  and  material  were  very  low. 

Int.  5. — Whether  or  no  you  believe  that  you  could  have 
built,  during  the  years  1849  and  1850,  a  post  like  the  Hudson's 


m 


I! 


Bay  Company's  post  at  F^rt  Vancouver,  with  its  stoclcado  and 
builfliitgs,  for  fifty  thousand  dolhxrs? 
(Ohjcctcd  to  as  incompetent.) 

Alls. — I  do  not  say  I  couM  have  done  it  in  those  years.  I 
believe  I  couM  have  done  it  for  less  three  years  earlier  or  later, 
with  the  fa(,'ilities  existing  at  those  periods. 

Inf.  (5. — How  long  do  you  estimate  it  would  have  taken  one 
hundred  workmen,  of  which  ten  were  skilled  and  the  rest  ordi- 
nary Avorkmcn,  to  have  built  such  a  post  as  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company's  post  at  Vancouver,  at  that  place? 

A71S. — The  work  should,  in  my  opinion,  have  mostly  been 
done  iri  the  course  of  a  year. 

Inf.  7. — Whether  or  no  you  have  visited  Fort  Vancouver 
since  your  previous  testimony  in  the  case?  If  so,  describe 
the  Hud  on's  Bay  Company's  post  as  you  then  saw  it. 

Alls. — I  visited  Fort  Vancouver  last  year,  in  July  and  Sep- 
tember. The  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  post  had  disappeared 
almost  altogether ;  no  houses  nor  sheds  remained;  there  wag 
one  little  rick  of  rotten  hay  and  straw,  partially  covered  by  a 
portion  of  a  fallen  roof,  only  remaining  to  mark  the  site. 

Jilt.  8. — What  would  you  estimate  to  have  been  the  largest 
number  of  acres  cultivated  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
during  any  one  year  during  your  stay  at  the  post? 

A)is. — I  do  not  know;  probably  the  Company  did  not  know 
exactly.  During  the  earlier  years  the  number  was  large,  say 
two  thousand  for  all  purposes,  except  grazing. 

Int.  0. — What  do  yon  know  of  any  servants  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  taking  land  around  Fort  Vancouver  as  donation 
claims? 

Ans. — I  know  that,  in  1850,  Governor  Ogden  adopted  th*^ 
policy  of  placing  old  servants  of  the  Company  on  most  of  the 
valuable  portions  of  land  included  in  the  Company's  claim, 
under  a  nominal  lease,  to  preserve  the  lands  from  squatters, 
with  the  expectation  that  if  the  Company  did  not  hold  these 
lands  these  servants  would  hold  under  the  donation  law.  I 
had  this  from  Governor  Ogden  himself.  (All  the  above  answer, 
made  from  statements  of  Gov.  Ogden,  objected  to  as  incompe- 
tent, and  also  as  not  the  best  testimony  of  the  matter  therein 


527 


stated.)    And  I  know  that  some  of  these  servants  afterwards 
held  their  claims. 

Int.  10. — What  do  you  know  of  the  mills  owned  by  the  Com- 
pany on  the  creek  above  Fort  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — I  know  they  had  a  grist-mill  and  saw-mill  in  fair 
working  condition,  five  and  six  miles  above  the  fort,  on  small 
streams,  and  near  the  bank  of  the  Columbia  river.  The  saw- 
mill was  a  simple,  plain,  ordinary  mill,  which  never  should 
have  cost  much  money.  There  had  been  another  mill  previ- 
ously built,  but,  to  my  knowledge,  never  worked  by  the  Com- 
pany. The  saw-mill,  which  was  worked  by  the  Company,  was 
a  single  saw,  and  which,  when  worked  to  its  greatest  capacity, 
would  cut  out  some  three  thousand  feet  per  day,  but  was  fre- 
quently out  of  repair. 

Int.  11. — Do  you  know  why  the  other  saw-mill  was  not  used? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  much  about  the  other  mill,  which  was 
said  to  have  had  a  gang  of  saws. 

Int.  12 — What  would  you  estimate  to  have  been  the  value  of 
the  mill  with  a  single  saw  in  1851  ? 

Ans. — At  the  close  of  that  year  I  would  not  have  given  five 
thousand  dollars  for  it ;  I  have  no  other  test  to  apply. 

Int.  13. — Whether  or  no  you  had  not  yourself,  previously 
to  this  time,  run  this  mill? 

Ans. — In  1850,  in  the  early  part  of  the  year,  the  mill  was 
run  under  my  direction  for  six  months;  but  the  expense  at- 
tending it  was  very  heavy,  and  the*  mill  was  frequently  out  of 
repair;  lumber  at  the  time  was  unprecedentedly  high.  After 
this,  I  would  not  have  leased  and  run  the  mill  on  hardly  any 
terms. 

Int.  14. — What  was  the  character  of  the  roads  about  Fort 
Vancouver? 

Ans. — In  1849,  in  the  open  country,  the  roads  were  very 
fair,  and  a  person  could  ride  or  drive  almost  any  where.  The 
roads  leading  to  the  mill  and  Fourth  Plains,  in  the  summer 
time,  were  very  good  dirt  roads.  They  had  been  made  on  In- 
dian trails  through  the  forests.  At  a  later  time,  good  wide 
roads  were  made  through  these  forests  by  our  own  people. 

Int.  15. — What  do  you  know  of  forests  deadened  by  fire  ? 
34  H 


628 

Ans. — There  were  very  heavy  fires  in  the  fall  of  1849,  which 
deadened  large  tracts  of  timber  lands  in  the  vicinity  of  Fort 
Vancouver. 

Int.  10. — Whether  or  no  you  know  of  any  distillery  used 
by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  their  post? 

Ans. — There  was  no  distillery  at  Fort  Vancouver,  to  my 
knowledge,  during  my  period  of  service  there,  used  by  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

CrosS'Examination. 

Int.  1. — Uave  you  not  been  previously  examined  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  in  this  case;  and,  if  so,  at  what 
time? 

Ans. — 1  have  been ;  about  fourteen  months  ago. 

Int.  2. — At  what  time  in  1850  did  you  commence  to  build 
the  Government  posts  at  Fort  Vancouver? 

A71S. — The  first  buildings  I  put  up  there,  I  put  up  in  1849, 
commencing  in  the  month  of  June. 

Int.  3. — Did  you  not  commence  the  building  of  the  military 
post  at  Fort  Vancouver,  which  consisted  of  ten  sots  of  oflBccrs' 
quarters,  with  kitchens  and  out-buildings  to  correspond,  in  the 
spring  of  1850? 

Ans. — I  did. 

Int.  4. — Was  not  this  post,  at  the  time  you  built  it,  built  of 
logs  squared  only  on  two  sides? 

Ans. — Mainly.  There  were  two  sots,  however,  that  were 
highly-finished  and  expensive  houses  for  that  country  at  that 
time.  The  one  set  was  known  as  the  commanding  officer's 
quarters ;  the  other,  the  office  and  quarters  of  the  chief  quar- 
termaster. 

Int.  5. — Did  these  two  sets,  during  the  year  1850,  differ  from 
the  other  buildings,  except  in  being  built  with  logs  more  care- 
fully squared  on  the  four  sides,  instead  of  being  reduced  only 
on  two  ? 

Ans. — The  logs  in  all  of  the  buildings  were  carefully  selected, 
but  were  not  squared,  as  a  rule,  in  any  case,  but  were  notched 
at  the  ends  and  laid  one  above  the  other,  and  were  made  tight 


529 


by  what  is  known  as  chinking  and  daubing.  Subsequently, 
when  it  became  necessary  to  lino  and  finish  them  inside,  the 
inner  portion  of  the  logs  were  squared  so  as  to  permit  the 
lining  to  bo  done  properly.  The  commanding  olTicer's  house 
was  a  large  two-story  building,  and  Avas  finished,  by  being 
thoroughly  lined  and  painted,  in  18;j0.  The  quartermaster's 
house  was  a  large  two-story  frame  building,  finished,  by  being 
lathed,  plastered,  and  painted,  in  the  same  year. 

Int.  0. — Was  this  quartermaster's  house  included  in  your 
estimate  of  the  cost  of  the  post  at  fifty  thousand  dollars? 

Ana. — It  was. 

Int.  7. — What  was  the  cost  of  that  quartermaster's  house, 
plastered  and  painted  and  in  complete  order?  Give  also  its 
size? 

Ans. — It  was  a  house  prepared  in  all  its  different  parts  in 
New  England,  shipped  to  California,  purchased  by  Major  Allen 
for  about  eleven  hundred  df)llars,  and  sent  to  mo.  The  bill 
included  lath,  lime,  shingles,  &c.  All  the  different  parts  were 
properly  marked,  so  as  to  be  readily  put  up.  It  covered,  on 
the  ground,  some  thirty-five  by  forty  feet,  with  an  L  of  some 
forty  or  fifty  feet.  The  latter  was  one  story.  The  main  house 
was  two  stories  high.  And,  Avhen  ready  for  occupancy,  tho 
estimated  cost  was  reported  at  four  thousand  five  hundred  dol- 
lars. 

Int.  8. — In  this  reported  cost,  of  what  items  did  the  thirty- 
four  hundred  dollars,  the  amount  over  and  above  the  sum  of 
eleven  hundred  dollars,  consist  ? 

Ans. — In  the  original  plan  the  house  was  cut  up  into  sev- 
eral small  rooms,  and  did  not  provide  for  halls.  The  plan  was 
considerably  modified  and  enlarged,  requiring  considerable 
material  and  extra  labor. 

Int.  9. — Had  your  lime,  laths,  lumber,  shingles,  bricks,  and  all 
that  went  into  the  construction  of  that  house,  had  to  have  been 
purchased  and  prepared  for  use  at  Vancouver  in  the  spring  of 
1850,  at  what  would  you  estimate  the  cost  of  that  house? 

Ans. — In  the  spring  of  1850,  lumber  and  all  materials  for 
house-building  were  exceedingly  high.  The  house  referred  to 
would  probably  have  cost,  under  the  circumstances,  ten  or 


K 


630 

twelve  thousand  dollars,  and  perhaps  more.  It  war  bought^ 
however,  in  the  fall  of  1850,  when  all  such  materials  were 
abundant  and  cheap  in  California. 

Int.  10. — Was  there  a  cellar  and  foundation  to  this  house, 
or  was  it  simply  set  on  blocks? 

Ans. — There  was  no  cellar  r.iider  the  house,  but  a  large  de- 
tached deep-root  house.  Tiie  house  rested  on  brick  columns 
or  blocks. 

Int.  11. — Please  answer  Cross-Interrogatory  9,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  summer  and  fall  of  1850,  at  Fort  Vancouver. 

Ans. — The  prices  declined  gradually  and  regularly  from  the 
early  spring  of  1850,  to  the  fall  of  that  year.  The  house  re- 
ferred to  was  the  last  house  put  up  in  that  year,  and  was  built 
in  the  very  last  part  of  it. 

Int.  12. — So  far,  then,  as  this  last  named  (quartermaster's) 
house  was  concerned,  you  do  not  wish  to  be  considered  as  say- 
ing that  it  was  built  when  labor *and  material  was  highest  ? 

Ans. — On  the  contrary,  it  was  built  when  labor  and  material 
was  lower.  The  carpenters,  however,  were  paid  the  same 
prices  that  they  were  earlier  in  the  season. 

Int.  13. — How  many  carpenters  were  employed  on  the 
quartermaster's  house ;  and  for  how  long  a  time  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  data.  I  have  no  means  of  answering  the 
question. 

Int.  14. — Were  not  soldiers  employed  in  the  building  of  the 
quartermaster's  house  ? 

Ans. — It  is  probable  that  they  assisted.  A  large  number 
of  soldiers  were  employed  that  year  on  extra  duty,  getting 
out  timber,  &c.,  though  the  carpenter's  work  was  principally 
done  by  citizen  employes. 

Int.  15. — In  stating  the  cost  of  that  building,  what  portion 
of  the  sum  of  thirty-four  hundred  dollars  do  you  suppose  was 
made  up  of  money  paid  to  soldiers  for  labor  ? 

Ans. — I  jannot  tell.  I  do  not  think  that  the  soldiers  were 
employed  hardly  any  in  the  constiuction  of  this  house. 

Int.  16. — What  was  the  amount  allowed  to  an  enlisted  man 
put  upon  extra  duty  at  Vancouver  in  the  year  1850  per  day  ? 


531 


Am. — If  a  common  laborer,  ho  was  paid  twcnty-fivo  cents, 
if  a  mechanic,  fifty  cents ;  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Int.  17. — In  stating  the  amount  of  cost  of  buildings,  was 
the  item  of  the  cost,  made  up  of  soldiers'  labor,  charged  at 
the  rates  you  have  mentioned? 

Ans. — It  should  have  been,  and  I  believe  was. 

Int.  18. — Cannot  shingles  be  put  on  log  houses  by  persons 
who  are  not  skilled  carpenters  ? 

Ans. — Yes.  And  in  building  the  garrisons  such  labor  was 
made  use  of  for  that  purpose. 

Int.  19. — What  was  the  width  and  length  of  the  command- 
ant's house  at  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — The  outer  dimensions  on  the  grou^hd,  including  the 
piazza,  were  at  least  about  sixty  feet  by  fifty.  The  main 
house  was  two-story,  and  had  eight  rooms ;  four  below,  and 
four  above.  Each  of  about  regulation  size,  sixteen  by  six- 
teen feet,  with  a  large  broad  hall  through  the  cer  tre  of  the 
house,  on  both  floors.  The  main  house  without  the  piazza, 
but  including  the  hall,  was  about  forty  feet  front,  by  about 
thirty-two  or  thirty-four  feet  deep. 

Int.  20. — Please  repeat  the  statement  made  by  you  in  your 
former  cross-examination,  as  to  the  cost  of  the  commanding 
ofificer's  quarters  ? 

Ans. — Seven  thousand  five  hundred  dollars. 

Int.  21. — What  was  the  size  and  height  of  the  other  build- 
ings erected  at  this  time,  which  you  described  as  buildings 
not  finished,  as  well  as  the  commandant's  quarters,  and  the 
quartermaster's? 

Ans. — There  were  eight  sets  of  officer's  quarters,  with 
kitchens,  all  of  one-story  each.  The  officer's  quarters  were 
about  forty  by  thirty-four  feet  on  the  ground,  on  the  outside, 
including  the  hall.  Each  set  of  quarters  consisted  of  four 
rooms  each,  exclusive  of  the  attics ;  the  kitchens  of  two 
rooms  each.  The  quarters  had  piazzas  in  front  of  each  r,et, 
eight  or  ten  feet  deep.  And  in  1850  they  were  finished  iu  the 
manner  before  described. 

Int.  22. — What  was  the  cost  of  one  of  these  sets  built  of 
logs,  carefully  selected ;  notchet'  at  the  ends  and  barked,  and 


m 


532 

laid  one  above  the  other,  and  made  tight  by  what  is  known  as 
chinking  and  daubing,  and  shingled  and  partitioned  into 
rooms,  with  floors  and  rough  ceiling  of  board  overhead? 

Ans. — The  estimated  cost  of  such  a  btiilding  was  twenty- 
five  hundred  dollars. 

Int.  23. — Can  you  tell  what  estimated  force  of  enlisted 
men  ■\>.is  employed  on  extra  duty  in  the  erection  of  these 
buildings  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  tell  without  a  reference  to  the  papers  for 
that  period.  And  then  I  could  not  tell  the  force  employed 
on  any  particular  house. 

Int.  24. — Where  were  the  logs  obtained  of  which  this  post 
was  built? 

Ans. — They  were  obtained  from  the  forest  immediately  in 
the  rear  of  the  present  site  of  Fort  Vancouver. 

Int.  25. — Was  there  any  trouble  in  finding  logs  sufficient 
for  the  purpose,  immediately  around  the  Fort  ? 

Ans. — Those  nearest  to  the  edge  of  the  forest  suitable  for 
log  houses  had  been  used  before  our  arrival  there  for  a  variety 
of  purposes,  but  by  going  into  the  forest  from  one  to  three 
miles,  sufficient  were  found. 

Ird.  26. — Did  not  the  difficulty  in  getting  timber  for  the 
buildings  arise  from  the  fact  that  the  forest  trees  were  gener- 
ally too  large  to  be  used  in  building  log-houses  ;  and  that  the 
small  ones  had  been  culled  out  ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  27. — What  number  of  enlisted  men  were  there  at  the 
post  of  Fort  Vancouver,  during  the  fall  of  1849,  and  the 
winter  1849  and  1850  ? 

Ans. — During  the  fall  and  winter  of  1849,  and  until  May, 
1850,  there  was  but  one  company  of  artillery,  numbering 
probably  some  seventy  men.  For  the  balance  of  the  year, 
1850,  there  were  four  or  six  companies  of  the  Rifle  Regiment. 
The  companies  were  small. 

Int.  28. — In  estimating  the  cost  of  these  buildings,  did  the 
transportation  of  material  employed  in  their  construction 
enter  into  the  cost  in  any  other  way  than  in  an  estimate  of 


533 


the  amount  paid  to  those  employed  as  drivers  of  teams  used 
in  hauling  material? 

Ans. — The  expenses  of  the  Government,  going  to  make  up 
the  same,  were  presumed  to  have  entered  into  the  cost. 

Int.  29. — Where  the  teams  used  in  transporting  freight  or 
material  are  owned  by  the  Government  at  the  time,  and  not 
hired  from  private  individuals,  is  there  any  addition  made  to 
the  cost  of  a  building,  on  account  of  that  transportation? 
And  if  so,  how  is  the  cost  of  transportation  estimated  ? 

Ans. — If  precise  cost  be  the  aim,  and  not  approximate,  the 
expense  of  such  transportation  must  be  counted  in.  The 
main  items,  in  arriving  at  the  cost,  is  the  money  value  to  the 
Government  of  the  animals,  wagons,  harness,  forage,  and 
drivers  for  the  time  so  employed. 

Int.  30. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  cost  of  animals  and 
wagons,  or  other  carriage,  employed  in  transporting  logs  from 
the  forests  to  the  building  sites  at  Vancouver,  and  the  forage 
for  those  animals,  (the  wagons  or  other  carriage,  and  the 
animals,  remaining  on  hand  after  the  construction  of  the 
buildings,)  entered  into  or  was  estimated  as  an  item  in  the 
cost  of  the  construction  of  those  buildings  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  swear  positively.  Such  should  have  been 
the  case.  I  mean  by  this,  that  a  certain  allowance  or  per- 
centage, of  say  six  per  cent.,  on  the  prime  cost  of  animals 
and  wagons,  should  be  allowed  for  use,  and  wear  and  tear. 

Int.  31. — Could  you  form  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  the 
buildings  of  the  Hudson  Bay  Company's  post,  or  the  military 
post  at  Vancouver ;  the  buildings  to  be  erected  when  land  was 
in  a  state  of  nature,  the  forests  to  be  levelled,  the  ground  to 
be  graded  and  grubbed  free  from  the  stumps,  and  the  men 
engaged  in  the  construction,  and  the  subsistence  to  support 
them,  were  required  to  be  brought  from  the  Atlantic  side  of 
the  continent,  and  protected  in  their  labors  by  a  sufiicicnt 
force,'^lso  brought  with  them,  and  whose  subsistence  had  to 
accompany  them,  or  b-j  transported  with  them? 

Ans. — I  have  had  many  more  difficult  duties  to  perform  ; 
many  of  a  similar  character.  I  am  of  the  opinion  I  could  do 
it,  if  the  duty  devolved  upon  me. 


534 

Int.  32. — What  would  estimate,  taking  into  consideration 
the  number  of  troops  requisite  to  protect  the  laborers  in  cross- 
ing the  continent,  in  the  years  1840  to  1843,  and  to  protect 
them  in  the  construction  of  the  buildings  ? 

A71S. — To  form  anything  like  a  correct  estimate  would  re- 
quire very  detailed  specifications.  I  cannot  now  give  a  correct 
estimate. 

Int.  33. — Can  you  form  a  correct  estimate  of  the  number 
of  men  required  to  build  a  certain  number  of  buildings,  and 
the  length  of  time  to  be  taken,  without  knowing  before  hand, 
the  condition  of  the  country  at  the  time  they  were  built,  the 
means  available  for  transportation  of  material,  and  the  pres- 
ence or  absence  of  skilled  labor  ? 

Ans. — I  think  not. 

Int.  34. — Can  you  tell  the  cost  of  transportation  and  sub- 
sistence for  the  "  Rifle  Regiment  "  from  the  Atlantic  side  to 
the  Pacific  ? 

Ans. — I  had  no  connection  with  that  march,  and  cannot  tell. 

Int.  35. — Have  you  ever  had  any  experience  in  the  building 
of  houses  in  the  Canadian  or  rabbet  fashion  ? 

Ans. — I  have  never  built  one  in  that  fashion,  but  have  re- 
paired, and  had  charge  of  several  of  the  largest  belonging  to 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Vancouver. 

Int.  36. — Have  you  had  charge  of  the  levelling  and  pre- 
paring the  ground  for  the  putting  up  of  a  stockade  and  the 
erecting  of  one  ? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  recollect. 

Int.  37. — What  was  the  cost  of  the  improvements  made  in 
one  of  the  smaller  eight  sets  of  buildings  at  Vancouver,  sub- 
sequently to  their  erection  in  1850,  and  when  were  these  im- 
provements made  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  tell  exactly,  as  a  large  portion  of  the  im- 
provements were  made  by  another  officer.  I  estimate  th^  cost 
at  at  least  twenty-five  hundred  dollars.  These  improvements 
were  made  chiefly  in  1855  and  1856. 

Int.  38. — Have  you  not  somewhere  stated  in  a  former  ex- 
amination, that  the  improvements  subsequently  made  would 


535 


bring  the  smaller  ones  up  to  seven  or  eight  thousand  dollars 
apiece? 

Ans. — Possibly  I  might.     I  don't  remember. 

Int.  39. — In  giving  your  opinion  that  a  hundred  workmen 
could  have  done  most  of  the  work  in  building  a  post  such  as 
that  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Vancouver  in  the  course 
of  a  year,  have  you  taken  into  considei'ation  the  fact,  that 
during  a  considerable  portion  of  the  year  work  could  not  bo 
done,  without  shelter,  on  account  of  the  rain  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not  consider  that  the  rain  in  that  locality  would 
seriously  impede  the  work. 

Int.  40. — Of  what  was  the  store-house,  inside  the  stockade, 
hired  to  the  United  States,  and  under  your  control,  built  ? 

A71S. — It  was  a  large  two-story  frame  building,  filled  in,  in 
the  Canadian  or  rabbet  style,  with  sawed  plank  and  straight 
edged  slabs,  floors  of  three-inch  plank,  building  not  battened. 
The  frame  was  very  heavy,  with  a  shingled  roof.  It  was 
built  of  fir  timber  and  lumber.  Perhaps  the  shingles  were 
cedar. 

Int.  41. — Were  the  other  large  store-houses  within  the  stock- 
ade built  in  the  same  way  ? 

Ans. — They  were;  except  the  main  store,  which  was  clap- 
boarded,  and  more  expense  put  upon  it. 

Int.  42. — Does  not  your  estimate  of  a  hundred  workmen, 
building  this  in  the  course  of  a  year,  suppose  the  material  of 
which  the  structures  were  to  be  erected,  to  be  furnished  them 
at  the  place  where  they  were  at  work  ? 

Ans. — Not  exactly.  I  meant  with  the  facilities  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  in  their  possession  at  that  time. 

Int.  43. — Can  you  give  the  cost  to  the  United  States,  of  the 
commandant's  quarters  at  the  military  post  of  the  Dalles  ? 

A718. — I  cannot.     I  do  not  know  that  it  was  ever  known. 

Int.  44. — AVithdrawn. 

Int.  45. — Did  not  the  commandant's  quarters  at  the  Dalles, 
so  far  as  your  knowledge  and  belief  extends,  cost  at  least 
three  times  as  much  as  the  commandant's  quarters  at  Van- 
couver ? 

Ans. — I  believe  it  did. 


i 


536 


Int.  40. — Do  you  personally  know  anything  of  the  price  of 
labor  and  material  at  Vancouver  prior  to  1849  ? 

Ans. — No. 

Int.  47. — In  answering  Interrogatory  6  (direct  examina- 
tion,) as  to  the  length  of  time  it  would  have  taken  to  build 
such  a  post  as  the  Hudson  Bay  Company's  post  at  Vancouver  ; 
what  buildings  did  you  include  in  the  term  post  ? 

Ans. — The  chief  factor's  house,  the  bachelor's  block,  for 
officers  and  clerks,  the  office,  the  store-houses,  and  the  black- 
smith's shop,  surrounded  by  the  stockade. 

Int.  48. — Was  that  what  you  also  meant,  in  ansv/er  to  In- 
terrogatory 5  of  the  direct  examination  ? 

Ana. — Substantially. 

Int.  49. — In  answer  to  Interrogatory  9  (direct  examina- 
tion,) you  have  stated  that  you  "  know  that  some  old  servants 
of  the  Company  held  their  claims."  Give  the  name  of  any 
one  person,  whom  you  personally  knew  to  be  in  the  employ  of 
the  Company,  that  afterwards  held  a  claim  about  Vancouver? 

Ans. — I  would  name  two  Canadian  Frenchmen,  Proulx  and 
LaFramboise. 

Int.  50.— Do  you  recollect  a  Board  of  Survey  at  Fort  Van- 
couver, early  in  1860,  to  examine  and  report  upon  the  value 
of  certain  improvements  on  the  military  reserve,  placed  there 
by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ?  If  so,  state  if  you  can,  the 
circumstances  that  led  to  the  appointment  of  that  Board,  and 
what  the  object  was,  which  was  intended  to  be  accomplished 
at  the  time  the  Board  was  appointed  ? 

Ans. — I  do  recollect  perfectly.  Some  land  enclosed  by  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  also  claimed  by  the  "  Catholic  Mis- 
sion," and  on  which  were  a  fc  '  old  buildings  belong  to  ser- 
vants of  the  Company  was  required  for  military  uses.  The 
object  of  this  Board  was  to  assess  the  damages,  to  have  the 
land  freed,  and  put  in  use  for  purposes  of  drill,  «fec. 

Int.  51. — Was  that  the  same  land  referred  to  in  your  letter 
to  John  Wark,  Esq.,  dated  March  5th,  1860,  and  now  shown 
to  you,  and  in  evidence  in  this  case,  on  pages  190  and  191, 
of  the  printed  evidence  in  behalf  the  plaintiff? 

Am. — It  was. 


537 


ancouver 


Int.  52. — From  what  point  did  the  line  of  stakes,  marking 
out  the  line  indicated  by  the  markers,  mentioned  in  your  letter 
start,  and  in  what  direction  did  it  run,  and  where  did  it  end? 

Ans. — It  started  from  a  point  some  seventy  or  eighty  yards 
easterly  from  the  Catholic-mission  building,  and  ran  in  a  south- 
erly direction;  thence  in  a  straight  line  to  the  Columbia  river. 

Int.  53. — Which  side  of  the  stockade  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company's  post  did  it  run,  and  how  far  was  the  line  from  that 
stockade? 

Ans. — The  line  was  four  hundred  or  more  yards,  I  think,  to 
the  west  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  stockade. 

Int.  54. — Do  you  recollect  what  the  eight  buildings  were, 
Tvhose  value  was  estimated  by  that  survey  ? 

Ans. — I  knew  them  at  the  time,  but  cannot  recall  them  with 
certainty  now. 

Int.  55. — Were  the  "Johnson  House,"  the  "Salmon  House," 
and  the  "Field  House"  included  in  the  eight  buildings,  as  esti- 
mated? 

Ans. — I  don't  think  they  were. 

Int.  50. — Were  these  three  last  buildings  removed  or  taken 
down  at  the  time  the  fences  and  the  other  buildings  west  of  the 
line  of  the  stakes  were  removed  and  the  land  prepared  for 
military  purposes? 

Ans. — Not  at  the  time.  The  "Field  House"  still  stands 
where  it  was,  and  is  the  house  that  was  occupied  by  Mrs. 
Stubbs. 

Int.  57. — Do  you  recollect  when  the  "Salmon  House"  was 
taken  down  and  removed,  and  by  whom? 

Ans. — I  recollect  of  having  it  taken  down,  in  1860, 1  think. 
It  was  not  removed;  it  was  simply  taken  down.  This  was 
after  the  place  was  vacated  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Int.  58. — What  became  of  the  "Johnson  House?" 

Ans. — I  had  it  removed  in  1860  to  the  western  line  of  the 
reserve,  not  far  from  the  river.  This  was  the  house  in  which 
I  lived  in  1849.  The  other  "Johnson  House"  was  pulled 
down  some  time  in  1857. 

Int.  59. — Were  not  all  the  houses  and  fences  on  the  reserve 
west  of  the  stakes,  except  those  referred  to  in  the  last  three 


538 


questions,  taken  down  or  removed  immediately  after  the  report 
of  the  Board  of  Survey,  to  render  the  ground  fit  for  military 
use? 

Ans. — They  were  all  removed. 

Int.  GO. — What  buildings  were  erected  by  the  United  States 
prior  to  the  24th  of  September,  1857,  in  addition  to  those  built 
under  your  direction  in  1849  and  1850,  at  the  post  of  Van- 
couver? 

Ans. — There  wore  new  stables  and  a  blacksmith's  shop,  with 
new  and  additional  barracks  for  soldiers,  and  the  wharf  was 
nearly  completed. 

Int.  Gl. — Can  you  give  any  estimate  of  the  cost  of  these 
improvements  you  have  just  mentioned? 

Ans. — I  should  say  fifty  thousand  dollars. 

Int.  62. — In  what  direction  from  Vancouver  were  those  lands 
on  which  were  deadened  timber,  caused  by  the  fires  of  the  fall 
of  1849  ?  . 

Ans. — Northeasterly. 

Int.  G3. — Where  did  this  fire  commerce? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  exactly;  but  probably  ten  or  fifteen 
miles  to  the  east  of  the  fort,  in  the  forests  near  the  river. 

Int.  64. — Is  not  the  line  of  forests  immediately  back  of  the 
United  States  post  now  free  from  deadened  timber  ? 

Ans. — Quite  so. 

Int.  65. — Was  not  the  road  from  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany's post  to  the  Mill  Plain,  in  1849  and  1850,  corduroyed 
or  bridged  for  a  portion  of  the  distance  ? 

Ans. — It  was. 

Int.  66. — Was  there  not  a  road  from  the  mills  back  to  the 
Mill  Plain,  and  roads  through  the  woods  connecting  the  differ- 
ent plains  back  of  Vancouver  with  each  other  and  with  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company's  post? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  67. — Was  there  not  also  a  road  running  down  the  river 
for  some  distance? 

Ans. — There  was ;  a  very  good  road. 

Int.  68. — Do  you  not  think  you  may  be  mistaken  in  the  idea 


539 


cost  of  these 


that  these  roads  running  through  the  woods  were  laid  out  on 
Indian  trails? 

Ans. — It  was  told  me  that  they  were.  It  does  not  make 
any  difference  whether  they  were  or  not,  as  they  were  good 
enough  to  answer  any  purpose.     Possibly  I  was  misinformed. 

Int.  60. — In  what  year  did  General  Persifer  Smith  make  his 
visit  to  Fort  Vancouver? 

Ans. — In  the  autumn  of  1849. 

Int.  70. — At  the  time  of  his  visit,  had  any  of  the  officers, 
soldiers  or  followers  of  the  Rifle  Regiment,  that  crossed  the 
plains  in  that  year,  arrived  at  Vancouver? 

Ans. — During  his  visit  at  Vancouver  the  advance  of  the 
Rifle  Regiment  arrived  there  in  the  month  of  October. 

Int.  72. — When  did  General  Smith  leave;  and  did  lie  ajjain 
visit  Vancouver  in  that  year  or  the  next? 

Ans. — He  left  late  in  the  year  1840,  and  did  not  visit  the 
place  again,  so  far  as  I  can  recollect. 

RUFUS   lNGi»LLS, 

Bvt.  3IaJ.  Gen.  and  Asst.  Q.  M.  General. 
New  York,  July  27,  1807. 


•ni 


lown  the  river 


State  of  New  York,         "I 
Gity  and  County  of  New  York.  / 

I,  W.  II.  Gardner,  a  notary  public,  in  and  for  the  State  of 
New  York,  duly  commissioned  and  sworn,  do  hereby  certify 
that  the  foregoing  deposition  of  Brevet  Major  General  Rufus 
Ingalls  was  taken  and  reduced  to  writing  by  me,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  said  Avitness,  from  his  statements,  at  No.  17  State  street, 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  in  pursuance  of  an  agreement  made 
between  Charles  C.  Beaman,  jr.,  Esq.,  as  counsel  for  the  Uni- 
ted States,  and  Edward  Lander,  Esq.,  counsel  for  the  Ilutlson's 
Bay  Company,  the  said  deposition  being  commenced  on  the 
25th  day  of  July,  continued  on  the  26th,  and  concluded  on 
the  27th  day  of  July,  1867. 

I  further  certify  that,  to  the  said  witness,  before  his  exam- 
ination, I  administered  the  following  oath : 


It  J 


640 

"You  do  swear,  in  the  presence  of  the  ever-living  Cfod,  that 
the  answers  to  bo  given  by  you  to  the  interrogatories  and 
cross-interrogatories  to  be  propounded  to  you  by  me  in  the 
matter  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  vs.  the  United  States 
of  America,  shall  be  tho  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but 
the  truth." 

I  further  certify  that  the  said  deposition  was  by  me  care- 
fully read  to  said  witness,  and  then  signed  by  him  in  my  pres- 
ence. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
[seal.]         and  affixed  my  official  seal  this  27th  day  of  July, 
in  the  year  1867. 

W.  H.  Gardner, 

Notary  Public. 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay   Company 
against  the  United  States. 

Deposition  of  Q-eorge  Sucleley,  31.  D.,  of  tho  city  of  New  York, 
duly  sworn  and  examined  in  the  said  city  by  virtue  of  an 
agreement  between  Chas.  C.  Beaman,  jr.,  agent  and  at- 
torney for  the  United  States  of  America,  and  Edward 
Lander,  agent  and  attorney  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, before  me,  W.  H.  Gardner,  a  notary  public  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  duly  commissioned  and  sworn,  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States. 

Testimony  of  George  Suckley,  M.  D. 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  residence,  and  occupation  ? 

A71S. — George  Suckley ;  I  reside  in  New  York  city,  and  am 
a  physician. 

Int.  2. — Are  you  the  same  George  Suckley  who  has  already 
given  testimony  in  the  matter  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricul- 
tural Company  against  the  United  States? 

Ans. — I  am. 

Int.  3. — Whether  or  no  you  have  ever  visited  Fort  Colvile 


541 


I  Fort  Colvile 


post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company?     If  so,  state  wlien,  and 
under  Avliat  circumstances? 

Ans. — I  visited  Fort  Colvile  in  1853,  while  attached  to  the 
"Northern  Pacific  Railroad  Exploration."  I  was  there  some 
three  or  four  days,  and  was  the  guest  of  the  Company. 

lilt.  4. — Will  you  describe  Fort  Colvile  as  you  saw  it  and 
now  remember:  and  in  your  answer  state  how  much  the  build- 
ings had  depreciated,  if  anything,  from  their  original  value  as 
buildings;  and  how  long,  in  your  opinion,  it  would  have  taken 
twenty-five  men  to  have  built  such  buildings  in  that  place? 

(The  opinion  of  the  witness  asked  for  in  the  above  inter- 
rogatory herr  objected  to  by  Mr.  Lander,  i; uunscl  on  the  part 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.) 

Ans. — My  general  remembrance  is  pretty  good.  The  build- 
ings were  common  structures,  what  I  might  term  home-made, 
that  is,  built  by  men  who  were  not  skilled  or  export  carpen- 
ters, in  my  judgment.  The  buildings  were  not  very  large,  and 
were,  I  think,  built  partly  of  square  timber  and  logs;  some  of 
them  might  have  been  built  of  plank  or  boards.  Nearly  all  of 
them  were  what  we  generally  call  one-story  buildings.  I  can- 
not be  precise  as  to  the  number.  The  buildings  wore  what  I 
should  term  worn;  they  were  fairly  good,  hv*  not  at  all  new. 
People  were  living  in  them,  excepting  those  that  were  occupied 
as  storehouses  or  for  other  purposes  connected  with  the  Com- 
pany's business.  There  was  some  fenced  land  near  the  fort. 
I  should  say  that  with  twenty-five  soldiers  of  about  the  average 
mechanical  ability  of  those  I  superintended  in  building  army 
hospitals,  that  I  could  build  Fort  Colvile  in  thirty  days  or  less. 

jyif^  5. — What  would  you  estimate  the  value  of  the  buildings 
at  Fort  Colvile  to  have  been? 

jlfig, — The  money  value  I  could  not  give;  the  relative  value, 
taken  as  constructions  per  se,  in  my  mind,  would  place  Fort 
Colvile  below  Fort  Nisqually,  but  better  than  ''Boise,"  "Walla- 
Walla,"  or  "Okanagan." 

jjil^  (3. — Have  you  ever  visited  Fort  Okanagan? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  in  1853. 

jnt,  7. — How  long  were  you  there  ? 

jLn«. — I  think  the  good  part  of  two  days. 


i 


642 


Int.  8. — Will  you  describe  this  post? 

Ann. — It  was  poor  enough ;  not,  to  my  mind,  as  well  built 
as  Fort  Walla-Walla,  which  I  visited  three  or  four  days  subse- 
quent to  my  visiting  Fort  Okanagan. 

Int.  9. — How  long  do  you  think  it  would  have  taken  twenty- 
five  soldiers  to  have  built  such  a  place  as  Fort  Okanagan  at 
that  place?  * 

Ans. — I  should  think  that  twenty-five  men,  of  the  class  I 
am  asked  about,  ought  to  build  such  a  place  in  about  two  dayg. 

Int.  10. — How  long  were  you  at  Fort  Walla- Walla? 

Ana. — I  think  I  was  there  three  nights  and  days. 

Int.  11. — Describe  it  as  you  saw  and  remember  it. 

Ans- — I  would  place  it,  in  point  of  value  and  construction, 
midway  between  Fort  Okanagan  and  Fort  Colvile — Fort  Col- 
vile  being  situate  near  growing  timber,  while  Fort  Walla-Walla 
was  farther  distant. 

Int.  12. — Have  you  ever  visited  Fort  Boise,  post  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  in  185-4  I  was  in  and  about  Fort  Boise  for 
about  three  weeks. 

Int.  13. — Will  you  describe  Fort  Boisfe  as  you  saw  and  re- 
member it? 

Ans. — As  compared  with  Fort  Okanagan,  I  should  say  it 
was  of  cheaper  construction,  in  so  far  as  the  amount  of  labor 
was  required  to  build  it.  The  material  of  the  building  was 
principally  adobe  or  sun-dried  bricks.  It  would  be  difficult  to 
compare  the  value  of  such  a  construction  with  those  of  Fort 
Walla-Walla  or  Nisqually.  It  is  difficult  to  decide  between 
the  value  of  adobe  and  wood,  human  labor  and  transportation 
being  the  only  guide. 

Int.  14. — Have  you  ever  had  any  experience  in  the  construc- 
tion of  an  adobe  building? 

Ans. — I  have. 

Int.  15. — How  long  do  you  think  it  would  have  taken  twenty- 
five  men  to  have  built  Fort  Boise  ? 

Ans. — From  what  I  saw  when  I  helped  to  build  an  adobe 
house  in  Utah,  if  we  allow  for  the  time  that  adobe  bricks  are 
drying,  the  mere  labor  of  building  such  fort  ought  to  be  per- 


r)43 


formed  in  five  days,  ami  perhaps  less.  If  I  remerriber  cor- 
rectly, and  I  think  I  do,  the  roofs  of  the  Fort  Boise  buildings 
■were  made  of  willow  brush  and  mud.  I  think  there  were  no 
glass  windows,  but  am  not  sure  on  that  point. 

Int.  IG. — Wiiat  do  you  remember  of  the  trade  at,  or  the 
number  and  character  of  the  servants  employed  by  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  at  their  posts  "Colvile,"  "Okanagan," 
"Boise,"  and  "Walla- Walla?" 

Ans, — Colvile,  when  I  was  there,  was  in  charge  of  Mr.  Angus 
McDonald,  whom  I  took  to  bo  a  superior  man,  and  as  subor- 
dinate to  him  there  were  Indians,  half-breeds,  and  a  few  white 
men,  and  one  Sandwich  Islander,  that  I  remember.  Judging 
of  men  at  the  other  named  forts,  I  would  place  them,  as  to 
grade,  with  those  of  Angus  McDonald's  subordinates.  The 
more  prominent  posts  had  the  best  men  attached.  Okanagan, 
Boise,  and  Walla-Walla  to  me  appeared  to  have  a  very  inferior 
set.  I  judged  that  the  trade  of  the  three  last-named  posts  was 
far  inferior  to  that  of  Fort  Colvile.  Foit  Colvile  seemed  to 
me  to  be  doing  a  good  trade,  while  the  other  three  forts  ap- 
peared to  be  doiog  but  very  little.  At  Fort  Colvile,  I  was  told 
by  an  employe  that  the  Company  purchased  beaver  skins  for 
thirty  charges  of  powder  and  ball  apiece,  and  musk-rat  skins 
for  one  charge  of  powder  and  ball  apiece. 

Cross- Examination. 


1 
4 


i 


Jnt.  1. — How  many  buildings  were  there  at  Fort  Colvile  at 
the  time  of  your  visit  within  the  stockade? 

Ans. — My  remembrance  of  the  stockade  is  bad.  If  there 
was  one,  it  was  imperfect.  I  think  there  were  not  more  than 
eight  or  ten  comfortably-inhabitable  buildings  at  the  post — 
distributed  as  usual  at  such  posts. 

Int.  2. — Have  you  no  distinct  recollection  of  a  stockade  at 
Fort  Colvile? 

Ans. — My  recollection  was  not  distinct  as  to  the  stockade. 

Int.  3. — Have  you  a  distinct  recollection  of  any  particular 
building  at  Colvile,  so  as  to  describe  it  ? 

Ang, — The  house  that  Mr.  McDonald  lived  in  was  larger 


■)44 


than  the  other  inhabited  buildings.  At  this  hite  date  I  can- 
not recollect  as  to  the  exact  size  of  the  buildings  there,  or 
within  a  few  feet  of  their  size.  And  I  will  not  be  positive, 
but  the  McDonald  house  Avas  jfreatcr  in  lici^jrht  of  stories  than 
the  others,  and  '.  wered  a  greater  area  of  ground  than  other 
inhabitable  buildings  at  the  post. 

Int.  4. — Did  you  no^  e  with  any  particularity  any  of  these 
buildings  at  the  post? 

Ans. — T  buve  a  very  fair  recollection  of  the  place,  the  same 
as  most  any  man  would  have  of  a  place  visited  some  thirteen 
or  fourteen  years  previous  ;  and  with  the  exception  of  the  ex- 
istence of  a  stockade  at  the  post,  I  think  my  memory  clear. 

Int.  5. — Can  you  give  the  size  of  the  dwelling  house? 

Ans. — Only  approximately — not  by  feet.  Say  a  house 
built  with  a  hall-way,  with  a.  fair  sized  comfortable  room  on 
each  side.  In  the  rear,  or  back  part  of  the  house  there  were 
rooms  used  for  kitchen  and  tlie  more  ordinary  household  pur- 
poses, as  I  supposed. 

fnt.  (). — Of  what  was  that  house  built,  whether  of  logs, 
square  timber  ;  or  was  it  a  frame  house? 

yb!.s. — I  think  that  buildinji  was  of  dressed  lofjs.  I  will  not 
say  fully  dressed,  but  comfortably  square,  for  protection 
against  weather. 

Int.  7. — Is  this  your  distinct  recollection  of  the  manner  in 
which  that  particular  house  was  built,  or  is  it  an  impression 
as  to  the  manner  in  which  all  tiic  houses  were  built  at  that 
post  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  seeing  any  house  there  but  what 
Avas  built  of  wood.  I  don't  think  an  adobe  was  used  except 
perhaps  for  chimneys.  Except  in  size,  the  house  that  Mr. 
McDonald  lived  in  did  not  strike  me  to  be  of  much  better 
construction  than  the  others;  and  of  about  the  same  ma- 
terial. 

Int.  8. — Was  this  house  of  McDonald's  ceiled  inside  with 
tongued  and  grooved  boards  ? 

A718. — I  never  took  the  boards  off  to  see. 

Int.  9. — Were  the  rooms,  or  any  of  them  boarded  on  the 
inside  with  planed  boards? 


545 


Ans. — I  have  my  do'ibts  as  to  there  being  any  planeil 
boards,  my  remembrance  is  not  sufllciently  clear  to  say  posi- 
tively whether  they  were  or  not. 

Int.  10. — Did  you  see  there  a  large  store,  or  range  of  stores, 
sixty  feet  by  twenty-five;  two  floors,  and  a  story  and  half 
high;  built  of  square  timber  in  the  Canadian  fashion? 

Ans. — I  remember  the  store  in  purchasing  powder  then^  to 
pay  an  Indian.  I  am  not  an  expert  in  the  Canadian  style  of 
architecture,  and  cannot  therefore  answer  the  latter  part  of 
the  question. 

Int.  11. — Have  vou  anv  rorioliection  as  to  the  size  of  that 
store  where  you  purchased  ti:.   powder  to  pay  the  Indian  ? 

Ans. — It  was  a  jxood,  fair  sized  i)uihliii";. 

Int.  12. — Do  you  recollect  another  store  at  Colvilc  besides 
the  o'.ie  vou  visited  to  buv  pov^'dcr? 

A71S. — My  inipressio)!  and  l)elief  is  that  there  were  two  build- 
ings there  called  stores  by  the  peojjle,  but  one  was  a  store- 
house for  the  safe-keeping  of  furs,  and  the  other  more  par- 
ticularly a  shop,  where  Indians  brought  their  fuis  to  barter, 
and  where  barter  goods  were  kept. 

Int.  13. — What  was  the  relative  size  of  these  two  stores  you 
mentioned,  to  each  other  V 

Avft. — The  one  I  termed  the  store-house  was  the  largest. 

Int.  14. — Do  you  recollect  also,*  a  range  of  buildings  occu- 
pied by  officers,  called  ollicer'.i  houses,  a  story  and  a  half  high, 
shinsled,  Avith  three  chimneys? 

Ans. — T'o  ;  not  by  that  name. 

Int.  15. — Do  you  recollect  a  range  of  buildings,  besides 
the  -0  you  mentioned  ? 

An-i. — The  general  plan  of  the  fort  was,  as  I  remember,  in 
the  f'^rm  of  a  hollow  square;  the  buildings  not  touching  each 
other. 

Int.  10. — Was  there  a  bastion  at  Fort  Colvile? 

An.<i. — I  think  there  ^as  ;  but  am  not  positive. 

Int.  17. — Was  there  a  barn  ? 

vl>»^. — There  were  some  buildings  scattered  about  which 
might  have  been  barns,  or  might  have  been  dwellings. 

Jpl.  18. — Was  there  a  horse  park  there? 


546 


A718. — There  were  fenced  enclosures,  which  might  have  been 
used  for  corrals. 

.Int.  19. — Were  you  in  any  of  these  buildings,  which  you 
think  you  noticed  there,  other  than  the  McDonald  house,  and 
the  store  where  you  bought  the  powder? 

Ans. — I  was  in  buildings  where  my  men  were  housed;  I,  as 
well  as  they,  being  guests  of  the  Company. 

Int.  20. — How  were  the  walls  of  the  room  you  occupied 
furnished  off? 

Ans. — I  slept  in  a  room  in  the  McDonald  house,  which  was 
the  principal  sitting  room  of  the  officers  in  charge  of  the  post. 
The  finish  of  the  room  was  plain,  comporting  with  the  entire 
finish  of  the  establishment.  I  do  not  think  there  was  any 
mortar  used  in  its  finish.  The  ceilings,  walls,  and  floors  being 
of  boards  or  wood. 

Int.  21. — Can  you  state  how  the  roofs  of  these  buildings 
were  covered  ? 

Ans. — I  will  not  be  positive,  but  the  roofs  were  dark 
colored;  and  at  this  late  day,  I  would  say  that  they  W(i(> 
covered  with  hand-made,  rived  or  choppol  shingles. 

Int.  22. — Of  what  was  Fort  Okanagan  built? 

Ans. — My  general  impression  and  remembrance  is,  the 
buildings  were  small,  squared  timber  edifices  of  rude  construc- 
tion. • 

Int.  23. — Was  there  a  stockade  at  Okanagan  ? 

Ans. — I  am  not  positive,  but  think  there  was  one,  if  there 
was  one,  it  was  not  so  good  as  that  of  Fort  Nisqually. 

Int.  24. — Of  what  was  Fort  Walla-Walla  constructed  ? 

Ans. — To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  it  was  built  of  adobe 
and  logs. 

Int.  25. — How  far  distant  was  the  growing  timber  you  spoke 
of  in  answer  to  Interrogatory  11,  from  Walla-Walla  ? 

Ans. — The  timber,  such  as  you  would  obtain  logs  from 
nearest  Fort  Walla-Walla,  was  about  fifteen  miles  further 
away  from  it  than  that  which  was  nearest  to  Fort  Colvile. 

Int.  26. — Was  there  a  stockade  at  Fort  Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — Not  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  it  was  more  in 
the  nature  of  an  adobe  wall. 


547 


;rc    dark 

ley   wi.n<^ 

5    is,    the 

construc- 

,  if  there 

ly- 

ted? 
of  adobe 

Int.  27. — Was  there  any  of  the  timber  you  have  spoken  of 
used  in  the  construction  of  this  wall  ? 

An8. — I  am  not  positive  as  to  that. 

Int.  28. — How  much  timber  was  used  in  the  construction  of 
the  fort,  and  in  what  part  of  it  was  it  used? 

Ans. — My  recollection  is  that  the  buildings  composing  the 
establishment,  were  principally  of  the  adobe  or  mud  construc- 
tion, with  plates  of  timber  for  the  rafters  to  lie  upon.  The 
fort  had  wooden  doors,  and  I  think  had  wooden  window  shut- 
ters. 

Int.  29. — You  have  said  in  answer  to  interrogatory  No. 
13,  in  speaking  of  Fort  Boise,  the  "material  of  the  build- 
ing was  principally  adobe  or  sun-dried  bricks."  "It  Avould 
be  difficult  to  compare  the  value  of  such  a  construction,  with 
those  of  Forts  Walla- Walla  or  Nisqually."  In  what  did 
the  construction  of  Boise  differ  from  that  of  Forts  Walla- 
Walla  or  Nisqually? 

A718. — Wood  was  principally  used  in  the  construction  of 
Fort  Nisqually,  and  wood  and  mud  mixed  at  Fort  Walla- 
Walla.     Fort  Boise  was  more  completely  an  adobe  building. 

inf.  30. — Was  there  an  adobe  Avail  enclosing  the  buildings 
at  Fort  Boise? 

Ans. — I  think  not.  There  was  a  horse-corral  close  to  the 
fort,  but  I  cannot  call  it  a  wall. 

Int.  31. — At  what  time  of  the  year  Avcre  you  at  Fort  Boise? 

Ans. — I  was  there,  as  near  as  I  can  recollect  as  to  date,  in 
the  latter  part  of  August  and  in  the  month  of  September, 
1854,  with  "Haller's  Expedition." 

Int.  32. — Did  you  make  a  report  on  these  posts  to  the  com- 
manding officer  of  the  North  Pacific  Railroad  Expedition? 

An». — Not  particularly  as  regards   -^he  posts;  but  I  think 


they  were  embraced  in  the  general  report,  with  the  excejition 
of  Fort  Boise. 

Int.  33. — Has  not  your  recollection  of  this  Avholo  country 
grown  indistinct  and  dim  in  the  liip«(o  of  years? 

Ans. — 1  think  I  remember  th*-  country  as  well  as  most  any- 
body else  would,  not  having  been  tJ»ere  for  thirteen,  fourteen, 
or  fifteen  years. 


'k* 


1; 


I 


548 


Examination-in- Chief  Resumed. 

Int.  1. — What  e\pericnce  have  you  had  in  the  erection  of 
buildings  of  any  kind? 

Ans. — I  generally  directed,  superintended,  as  well  as  planned, 
the  transformation  of  buildings  at  Clarysville,  Md.,  and  caused 
additional  buildings  to  bo  built,  to  accommodate  about  four 
hundred  men;  and  at  "Point  of  Rocks,"  on  the  Appomatox 
river,  1  builc  very  substantial  buildings  to  accommodate  nearly 
four  thousand  men,  eleven  of  which  buildings  were  nearly  three 
hundred  feet  each  in  length  by  nearly  thirty  feet  wide;  others 
of  them  were  smaller.  The  buildings,  as  well  as  their  shingles, 
were  made,  under  my  direction  and  personal  supervision,  by 
convalescent  soldiers,  with  a  very  limited  assistance  from  the 
U.  3.  Quartermaster's  Department  and  some  detailed  men, 
decailed  by  the  generals  commanding  the  army  with  which  I 
was  at  the  time  serving.  I  was  Medical  Director  of  the  Army 
of  the  James,  under  the  command  of  Major  Generals  Butlor 
and  Ord;  and  it  was  within  the  limits  of  their  command  that 
the  above-named  buildings  were  erected. 

Int.  2. — What  were  these  buildings  built  of? 

Ans. — Pine  logs,  neatly  laid,  with  well-shingled  roofs,  good 
board  floors,  cross-pieces,  purlins,  and  joists,  being  of  sawod 
timber.     The  partitions  for  rooms  were  also  of  sawed  timber. 

hit.  3. — What  experience  have  you  had  in  building  adobe 
buildings  ? 

Ans. — 1  mixed  the  mortar  to  make  the  bricks  and  helped 
carry  the  dried  bricks  to  the  men  who  laid  them. 

f  Cross- Examination. 

Int.  1. — Were  these  buildings  anything  more  than  open  log 
buildings  with  shingle  roofs? 

Ans. — They  were  most  carefully  Jind  compactly  built. 

Int.  2. — Were  the  logs  squared  on  four  sides  and  the  build- 
ings chinked  and  plastered? 


549 


cction  of 

planned, 
id  causetl 
»out  four 
)pomatox 
itc  nearly 
arly  three 
lo;  others 
I'  shingles, 
•vision,  by 
;  from  the 
liled  men, 
h  which  I 
f  the  Army 
L-als  Butlor 
mand  that 


oofs,  good 

2  of  sawed 

cd  timber. 

ding  adobe 

and  helped 


|an  open  log 

built. 
id  the  build- 


Ans. — The  logs  were  not  scjuarcd,  but  dressed  to  fit  well ; 
they  were  chinked  where  necessary. 

Int.  3. — What  width  was  left  between  the  logs  before  chink- 


ing 


Ans. — The  logs  were  generally  about  thirty  feet  long,  the 
general  taper  of  the  tree  being  taken  into  consideration  in  the 
construction,  the  chinking  being  more  necessary  at  the  small 
ends. 

Int.  4. — Were  these  buildings  lined  inside  with  planed 
boards  ? 

Am. — Where  there  was  a  necessity  they  were.  The  rooms 
set  apart  for  special  purposes  were  carefully  finished ;  some  of 
them  were  also  papered. 

Int.  5. — Was  not  this  work  done  by  a  large  force  of  labor- 
ers ;  and  had  you  not  at  your  command  all  the  men  you 
desired? 

Ans. — The  force  varied  greatly  from  time  to  time.  I  was 
often  much  annoyed  by  not  having  as  many  men  as  I  wanted 
to  facilitate  the  operation. 

George  Suck  ley. 


State  of  New  York,         ) 
Oiti/  and  County  of  Netv  York,  f 

I,  W.  II.  Gardner,  a  notary  public,  in  and  for  the  State  of 
New  York,  duly  commissioned  and  sworn,  do  hereby  certify 
that  the  foregoing  deposition  of  George  Suckley,  was  taken 
and  reduced  {o  writing  by  me,  in  the  presence  of  said  witness, 
from  his  statements  on  this  23d  day  of  July,  18G7,  at  No.  103 
St.  Mark's  Place,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  in  pursuance  of  an 
agreement  made  between  Chas.  C.  Beaman,  jr.,  Esq.,  as  coun- 
sel for  the  United  States,  and  Edward  Lander,  Esq.,  counsel 
for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

I  further  certify  that,  to  the  said  witness,  before  his  exam- 
ination, I  administered  the  following  oath  : 

"You  do  swear,  in  the  presence  of  the  evcr-li\ing  God,  that 
the  answers  to  be  given  by  you  to  the  interrogatories  and 


■h. 


1 


550 


cross-interrogatories  to  be  propounded  to  you  by  me  in  the 
mattci"  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  vs.  the  United  States  of 
America,  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but 
the  truth." 

I  further  certify  that  the  said  deposition  was  by  me  care- 
fully read  to  said  witness,  and  then  signed  by  him  in  my  pres- 
ence. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereto  set  my  hand 
[seal.]         and  affixed  my  official  seal  this  23d  day  of  July, 
in  the  year,  1867. 

W.  H.  Gardner, 

Notary  Public. 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION 


ON    TIIK 


HUDSON'S   BAY   AND   PUGET'S   SOUND  AGRICUL- 
TURAL  COMPANIES'   CLAIMS. 


In  the  matter  of  the   Claim  of  the  Hudson  s  Baij   Company 
against  the  United  States. 


Deposition  of  James  31.  Alden,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part 
and  behalf  of  the  United  States,  at  the  city  of  Washing- 
ton, this  12tli  day  of  September,  1807. — Examination  by 
Mr.  Gushing. 

Testimony  of  James  M.  Aldex. 

Int.  1. — What  is  your  name,  residence,  and  present  occupa- 
tion? 

Ans. — James  M.  Ahlen,  Vice  Admiral's  secretary,  U.  S.  N., 
Annapolis,  Maryland. 

Int.  2. — Please  to  state  whether  at  any  time  you  have  had 
personal  knowledge  of  the  river  Kootenay,  in  North-western 
America;  and  if  so,  when,  for  how  long  a  time,  and  under  what 
circumstances? 

Ans. — I  was  employed  as  artist  on  the  North-western  Boun- 
dary Commission,  and  spent  several  weeks  on  that  river  in  the 
summer  and  fall  of  1860. 

Int.  3. — What  is  the  general  course  of  the  river  relatively 
to  the  boundary  line  of  British  Columbia  and  the  Territory  of 
Washington? 

Ans. — It  rises  in  British  Columbia,  crosses  the  boundary 
line,  and  runs  for  a  certain  distance  in  a  southern  direction, 
and  then  makes  a  great  bend  in  the  United  States,  curving 
36  II 


f 


m 


w 

^!i!! 


1 


s 


552 


round  to  the  westward,  then  flows  in  [a]  northerly  direction 
again,  and  empties  into  the  Columbia  river. 

Int.  4. — Whilst  on  the  Kootenay  at  that  time  did  you  see 
the  buildings  of  the  post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at 
Kootenay  ? 

Arts. — I  did. 

Int.  5. — Please  to  state  their  location  relatively  to  the  river 
and  the  boundary  line? 

Ans. — They  Avere  from  three  to  four  miles,  as  well  as  I 
could  judge,  to  the  south  of  the  boundary  line,  (latitude  49°,) 
and  the  river  was  not  in  sight  from  them,  but  it  was  no  great 
distance. 

Int.  6. — On  which  side  of  the  river  were  the  buildings  situ- 
ated. 

Ans. — On  the  left  bank. 

Int.  7. — What  is  the  general  course  of  the  river  at  that 
point? 

Ans. — Flowing  south. 

Int.  8. — Please  to  describe  the  topographical  features  of 
the  locality  of  that  post. 

Ans. — The  post  was  on  a  gravelly  plain,  covered  with  brush 
wood  principally  and  scattered  pine  trees.  The  plain,  I  sup- 
pose, was  two  miles  wi  le  at  that  place,  as  well  as  I  remember, 
and  then  the  mountains  rose  abruptly  from  the  plains.  The 
character  of  the  country  in  that  vicinity,  for  many  miles  to  the 
northward  and  for  some  distance  below,  was  gravel  plain  with 
scattered  pine  trees;  very  poor  soil  as  a  general  thing.  These 
were  narrow  plains,  constituting  a  terrace  on  each  side  of  the 
river.  The  greater  part  of  the  plain  was  unfit  for  cultivation; 
some  places  afforded  light  herbage  for  pasturage,  and  some 
none  at  all,  but  generally  the  land  was  of  a  very  miserable 
quality. 

Int.  9. — Did  you  see  any  land  there  under  enclosure  or  cul- 
tivation? 

Ans. — I  did  not. 

Int.  10. — Please  to  describe  the  buildings  at  the  post. 

Ans. — There  were  four  or  five  log  huts.  The  largest  one  I 
entered  and  found  to  be  a  church;  it  \sas  entirely  empty,  ex- 


553 


ccpt  some  religious  engravings;  there  was  a  picture  of  Pius 
IX  and  of  saints.  I  recognized  it  as  a  church  by  its  form, 
and  it  was  so  spoken  of.  It  was  not  chinked  so  as  to  be  suit- 
able for  a  store  or  dwelling-house,  and  the  light  was  received 
within  through  the  chinks.  It  was  constructed  of  ley's.  You 
could  see  daylight  through  the  roof,  which  was  apparently  of 
bark  covered  with  mud.  It  was  of  one  story.  It  was  a  long 
narrow  building,  at  least  thirty  feet  long,  but  the  length  much 
greater  than  the  breadth. 

Int.  11. — Please  to  look  at  the  photograph  now  presented 
to  you  and  state  whether  you  do  or  do  not  recognise  what  it 
represents? 

Ans. — 1  have  no  doubt  that  is  the  building  I  entered.  I 
recognize  it  by  the  building  anc?  the  door,  but  the  door  was 
not  then  closed  with  logs  as  it  now  is  in  the  photograph.  In 
order  to  identify  the  photograph  presented  to  me  I  have  writ- 
ten my  name  on  its  face. 

Int.  12. — Please  to  describe  the  other  buildings  relatively 
to  this  in  size  and  construction. 

Ans. — There  were  four  other  buildings  according  to  the  best 
of  my  recollection ;  they  were  on  the  further  side  of  the  church 
from  the  river,  and  all  near  the  church;  there  was  no  one  liv- 
ing there  apparently;  one  of  the  huts  was  considerably  larger 
than  the  others:  the  door  was  closed;  it  was  not  high  enough 
to  permit  a  man  to  enter  without  stooping  very  much.  Mr. 
King  informed  me  that  this  was  Mr.  Linklater's  house.  The 
building  was  not  more  than  one-third  of  the  size  of  the  church, 
if  that.  I  do  not  think  it  was  that,  though  somewhat  larger 
than  the  other  huts.  These  huts  were  all  alike  in  construc- 
tion; they  were  built  of  logs  and  chinked  up;  certainly  this 
was  the  case  with  the  house  in  which  Mr.  Linklater  was  said 
to  have  lived;  I  could  not  say  as  to  the  others.  I  had  par- 
ticular reason  for  taking  notice  of  the  post  at  Kootenay,  be- 
cause I  was  employed  to  sketch  the  prominent  points  on  our 
route.  I  rode  round  in  various  [directions]  about  those  build- 
ings, and  came  to  the  conclusion  I  would  not  take  a  sketch, 
as  the  place  Avas  of  no  importance. 


:| 


h 


r>rA 


[Mr.  Lantlcr  objects  to  the  statement  of  Mr.  King  as  hear- 
say and  incompeteftt.] 

J7tt.  13. — Please  to  look  again  at  the  photograph  and  state 
wlietherthe  small  building  on  the  left  of  the  photograph  is  the 
building  you  liave  just  been  describing  or  some  other. 

Ans. — It  is  another  building,  according  to  the  best  of  my 
recollection.  The  building  I  have  been  describing  is  farther 
down  the  river,  though  not  a  great  distance. 

IiU.  14. — Whether  or  not  the  door  represented  in  the  small 
building  on  the  photograph  is  different  from  or  such  as  you 
described  in  the  building  you  call  Lmklater's? 

Ans. — Precisely  similar,  relatively,  to  the  size  of  the  door. 

Int.  15. — What  was  the  general  condition  of  these  buildings 
in  respect  of  repair  or  dilapidation? 

Ans. — They  looked  very  much  dilapidated.  That  is  the 
usual  appearance  of  wooden  buildings  in  that  country  even  if 
they  are  not  very  old. 

Int.  16. — Have  you  ever  participated  in  or  witnessed  the 
construction  of  log  houses  of  this  description? 

Ans. — I  have.  I  particularly  recollect  the  construction  of 
Camp  Kootenay,  near  the  Kootenay  post. 

Int.  17. — In  your  judgfnent  how  much  time  and  how  many 
axe-men  would  it  take  to  erect  such  a  log  house  as  that  you 
describe  as  Linklater's? 

Ans. — From  what  I  have  seen  I  should  say  that  three  axe- 
men could  erect  such  a  house  in  such  a  place,  where  proper 
trees  were  handy,  in  half  a  day. 

Int.  18. — Whether  or  not  the  neighborhood  of  this  post  is  a 
more  or  less  wooded  country  ?  * 

Ans. — It  was  wooded  universally  with  just  the  proper  trees 
for  the  construction  of  such  houses.  The  trees  are  tall  and 
very  suitable  for  the  purpose,  requiring  but  little  labor  to  pre- 
pare them. 

Int.  19. — What  buildings,  if  any,  other  than  those  which 
you  have  described,  did  you  sec  on  the  banks  of  the  Koote- 
nay? 

A71S. — None  other,  except  those  built  by  our  party.  Of 
course  T  do  not  speak  of  Indian  wigwams  as  buildings.     We 


Hi)!) 


built  a  good  many  Imts  similar  to  thcso,  only  nicer  ajid  licttcr 
buildings.  Vo  were  more  particular  in  getting  logs  of  equal 
size,  and  chinking  tliem  with  pieces  of  wood  to  keeji  the  moss 
in,  and  the  ends  were  always  trimmed  ofl'verv  iioatlv,  niakin^ 
a  nice  looking  job,  and  used  canvas  for  the  roofs  of  the  build- 
ings. 

Int.  20. — Please  to  state  whether  the  Kootenaj'  rises  at  cer- 
tain seasons  and  spreads  out  into  lake-like  spots? 

A)i8. — It  has  the  same  character  as  the  Clarke's  fork  of  the 
Columbia,  and  spreads  out  over  the  low  islands,  niaking  one 
large  channel  instead  of  several  small  ones. 

Jnt.  21. — Please  to  look  at  the  map  presented  to  you,  enti- 
tled "The  Provinces  of  British  Columbia  and  Vancouver 
Island,  with  portions  of  the  United  Stales  and  Hudson's  Hay 
Territories,"  contained  in  a  Parliamentary  Blue  Book,  entitled 
"Papers  Relative  to  the  Affairs  of  British  Columbia,"  and 
state  how  more  or  less  the  river  Kootennv,  as  there  desi<;nod, 
corresponds  to  your  recollection  of  its  configuration  and  course. 

Alls. — It  appears  to  have  a  general  resemblance  according 
to  my  recollection  of  its  course.  I  came  upon  it  near  a  point 
marked  Bad  river,  north  of  Tobacco  Plains,  and  then  came 
down  the  river  on  the  right  bank  to  the  49th  parallel,  then 
crossed  the  river  at  that  point,  after  remaining  there  tAvo 
weeks,  and  encamped  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Kootenay  on  the 
49th  parallel,  nearly  opposite  our  old  camp.  In  the  fall  of 
the  same  year  (1860)  returned  to  the  Kootenay  and  came 
down  the  Kootenay  on  the  left  bank,  and  crossed  the  river  at 
a  point  where  the  river  makes  a  sharp  bend  to  t'lc  westward. 
We  contjriued  along  the  right  bank  until  the  river  makes  a 
sharp  bend  northwardly,  and  so  along  the  same  bank  until  wc 
came  to  a  place  called  Chclemta. 

(The  above  answer  as  to  tiie  travel  on  the  Kootenay  ob- 
jected to  as  irrelevant.) 

Int.  22. — Please  to  state  whether  or  not,  in  either  of  those 
journcyings  or  tarryings  on  the  Kootenay  river,  you  saw  any 
buildings  other  than  those  you  have  previously  described? 

Alls. — I  did  not. 

Int.  23. — Did  you  sec,  anywhere  on  the  south  side  of  the 


m 
W 


m 


^. 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


1.1 


■10    ^^" 

Sf  184 


125 


IIS 

lit 
u 


■4.0 


2.0 


L25  iU  iJA 


HwlDgrapiTic 

Sdenoes 

Carporation 


4^ 


% 


:\ 


^. 


^^% 


\ 


3)  WMT  MAIN  STRUT 

VViUTiR,N.Y.  MSM 

(71*)«7a-4S03 


m 


.^^ 


v\ 


^ 

y 


•\ 


m 


556 

river  Kootenay,  three  dwelling-houses  and  a  store,  all  of  hewn 
square  timber? 

Ana. — I  did  not. 

Int.  24. — Wore  the  buildings  which  you  have  described  as 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  post  at  Kootenay,  constructed 
all,  or  any  of  them,  of  hewn  square  timber,  or  were  they  of 
notched  logs? 

Ans. — To  the  best  of  my  recollection  they  were  of  notched 
logs. 

Int.  25. — From  your  knowledge  of  the  course  of  the  Koote- 
nay river,  south  of  the  49th  parallel,  where  must  a  post  have 
been,  if  on  the  south  side  of  the  river? 

Ans. — It  must  have  been  on  the  great  bend  the  river  makes 
from  the  eastward  to  the  westward;  and  if  there  had  been  any 
post  of  the  Company  I  should  certainly  have  kinwn  of  it. 
Although  I  did  not  take  astronomical  observations,  I  was  very 
particular  in  noticing  everything  connected  with  the  history 
of  the  country  and  its  topography,  and  all  matters  of  interest, 
and  especially  all  matters  connected  with  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company. 

Int.  26. — Had  you  knowledge,  at  that  time,  of  any  post  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  north  of  the  49th  parallel,  and  on 
the  same  river  Kootenay? 

Ans. — I  had  information  from  various  members  of  our  party 
that  Mr.  Linklater,  agent  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  had 
moved  about  one  mile  north  of  the  49th  parallel  and  established 
a  new  post  there,  and  abandoned  the  old  post. 

Examination  Resumed,  September  13,  1867.  < 


Int.  27. — In  your  profession  as  artist  are  you  conversant 
with  photographs,  lithographs,  engravings,  as  taken  from  actual 
drawings  by  the  hand  and  eye  ? 

Ans. — I  am,  to  a  considerable  extent. 

Int.  28. — Please  to  look  at  the  photograph  previously  pre- 
sented to  you,  and  state  how,  in  your  judgment,  that  was 
taken  on  the  spot,  whether  by  hand-drawing  or  photography? 

Ans. — It  was  photographed  directly  from  nature  on  the  spot. 


557 


Int.  29. — In  your  judgment  is  the  building  there  represented 
according  to  the  appearance  of  the  photograph,  constructed  of 
square  timber  or  of  logs? 

Ans. — Of  logs. 

Int.  30. — Suppose  the  Linklater  building  to  have  been  con- 
structed of  square  timber,  bow  much  additional  time  of  three 
axe-men  would  the  difference  between  logs  not  squared  and 
logs  squared  require? 

Arts. — I  could  not  say,  as  I  have  not  seen  anything  of  that 
kind  done;  all  the  squaring  I  have  seen  done  there  was  very 
rude  work.  I  mean  by  this  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  work 
in  general. 

Int.  31. — Was  the  squaring  which  you  refer  to  in  the  work 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  as  you  saw  it,  the  work  of  a 
saw  or  of  an  axe? 

Ans. — I  should  judge  that  all  I  remember  was  done  with  an 
axe. 

Int.  32. — Please  to  specify  any  one  or  more  of  the  posts 
which  you  thus  have  in  your  mind? 

Ans. — Fort  Langley  and  Fort  Hope,  on  Frazer  river. 

Int.  33. — Is  there  any  saw-mill,  so  far  as  you  know,  in  the 
vicinity  of  Fort  Kootenay? 

Ans. — There  is  not. 

Int.  34. — Did  you  or  not  observe  in  the  vicinity  of  Fort 
Kootenay  any  track  or  trail  of  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — I  observed  a  trail  at  Fort  Kootenay  leading  along 
the  left  bank  of  the  river,  used  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
and  the  Indians. 

Int.  35. — How  far  south  on  the  Kootenay  did  that  trail,  as 
seen  by  you,  extend? 

Ans. — It  extended  to  the  great  bend,  which  was  the  south- 
ernmost point,  where  the  river  makes  its  bend  to  the  west.  It 
then  crossed  the  river,  atid  continued  on  the  other  bank  to  the 
point  previously  spoken  of  called  Chelemta.  It  then  re- 
crossed  the  Kootenay,  and  left  the  river. 

Int.  36. — Have  you  read  at  any  time,  either  heretofore  or 
recently.  Sir  George  Simpson's  journey  round  the  world? 

Ans. — I  have. 


ha 


I 


■■ 


558     . 

Int.  37. — Have  you  or  not,  at  my  request,  read  particularly 
that  portion  of  tlio  narrative  which  refers  to  Avhat  is  there 
spoken  of  as  the  rendezvous  for  the  collection  of  furs  of  Ed- 
ward Borland,  an  agent  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Conipany? 

Ans. — I  have  read  that  part  particularly  at  your  request. 
I  had  previously  read  the  whole  book  while  engaged  on  duty 
in  Northwestern  Boundary  Survey. 

(The  above  question  and  answer  objected  to  as  irrelevant 
and  incompetent.) 

Int.  38. — From  your  knowledge  of  the  topography  of  the 
country  on  the  Kootenay,  are  you  able  or  not,  to  judge  at  what 
point  was  the  rendezvous  in  question,  as  indicated  by  Sir 
George  Simpson? 

Ann.-  I  formed  an  opinion  from  reading  the  book  where  this 
point  Avas,  that  it  was  at  the  great  bend  of  the  Kootenay. 
One  reason  for  this  opinion  is  the  short  time  afterwards,  when 
according  to  the  narrative  he  reached  the  "  Kullespelm  lake." 

(The  above  question  and  answer  objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

All  the  questions  and  answers  in  the  above  examination  re- 
ferring to  a  photograph  marked  Roman  Catholic  Mission, 
objected  to  as  irrelevant. 


Cross- Examination  hy  Mr.  Lander. 

Int.  1. — How  long  were  you  at  the  place  which  you  have 
described  as  being  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  post  at  Koot- 
enay ? 

Ans. — I  was  at  the  fort  I  suppose  half  an  hour,  long  enough 
to  dismount  and  make  a  thorough  examination  of  it.  I  rode 
round  it  first,  then  dismounted,  and  examined  as  I  have  before 
testified.  I  wished  to  get  a  point  from  which  I  could  include 
all  the  buildings  in  a  sketch,  but  I  could  find  no  such  point. 
We  made  three  camps  in  that  vicinity,  the  last  one  was  near  it. 

Int.  2. — Did  not  the  river  take  its  bend  to  the  westward  at 
or  near  this  place  you  have  described  ? 

Ana. — It  did  not  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief, 
its  general  course  at  that  point  was  north  and  south,  and  so 
continued  for  many  miles  above  and  below  that  point.     The 


559 


general  course  is  north  for  a  long  distance  above  the  boundary 
and  below  Kootenay. 

Int.  3. — Look  at  this  map  shown  to  you  by  the  counsel  on 
the  examination-in-chicf,  and  state  whether  it  does  not  show 
a  fort  called  "  Old  Kootenay,"  directly  at  the  bend  of  the  river 
on  its  south  side? 

Ans. — There  is  a  point  so  marked  on  the  map. 

Int.  4. — Did  you  ride  over  the  plain  on  Avhich  you  were  en- 
camped in  diftorent  directions,  or  did  you  confine  your  rides 
to  a  trail  running  through  the  brush? 

Avs. — I  rode  an  1  walked  in  many  different  directions  all 
over  the  plain. 

Int.  5. — Did  you  not  discover  good  land  upon  portions  of 
this  plain? 

Ans. — I  did  not.  I  saw  no  land  I  considered  good  in  that 
part  of  the  country.  Some  thirty  miles  north  of  the  boundary 
I  saw  very  good  land,  a  small  prairie  called  Joseph's  prairie. 
It  was  good  land,  good  pasturage,  and  good  cultivatable  land; 
land  fit  for  cultivation.  The  land  of  Tobacco  Plains  Avhore 
Fort  Kootenay  is  situated  is  very  generally  poor. 

Int.  6. — Is  not  the  most  of  this  land  on  the  plain  where  you 
encamped  covered  with  brush? 

Ans. — There  is  no  brush  anywhere  round  there,  it  is  open 
round  where  wo  camped,  it  was  perfectly  bare  where  we  last 
camped.  There  was  no  underbrush  in  the  vicinity,  nothing 
but  grass  and  bear-berry,  which  is  a  recumbent  plant. 

Int.  7. — Have  you  not  said  you  encamped  on  the  same  plain 
on  which  was  the  post  designated  by  you  as  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company's  post  called  Kootenay? 

Ans. — I  have.  The  country  for  thirty  or  forty  miles  was  a 
scries  of  openings,  generally  devoid  of  brush,  covciod  with  this 
kind  of  grass,  very  poor  grass,  and  uva  ursi.    . 

(The  above  question  objected  to  as  attributing  to  the  witness 
words  he  did  not  utter,  and  as  referring  by  the  word  "plain" 
to  no  specific  locality,  and  involving  necessary  equivocation.) 

Int.  8. — Was  that  the  character  of  the  country  around  the 
post  you  have  designated  as  Kootenay,  covered  with  grass  and 
uva  ursi  ? 

37  H 


560 


Ans. — It  was  the  general  character  except  that  round  the 
post,  it  may  have  less  open  with  more  brush.  The  general 
character  was  the  same  as  the  country  farther  north,  but  the 
plain  was  rather  narrower.  The  whole  country  was  gravelled 
terrace.  I  saw  no  places  fit  for  cultivation,  there  were  places 
where  you  get  pasture;  it  was  poor  pasture,  fit  for  Indian 
ponies  and  such  as  the  horses  of  that  region  could  subsist  on. 

Ijit.  9. — Have  you  not  said  that  the  post  was  on  a  plain,  and 
have  you  not  also  said  that  you  enca;nped  at  three  places  near 
that  post? 

Ans. — I  said  the  post  was  on  a  plain ;  by  plain  I  do  not  mean 
to  bo  understood  as  a  level  plain.  I  mean  the  Tobacco  Plains, 
a  tract  of  country  in  some  places  level,  in  others  rolling  hills, 
extending  for  many  miles  along  the  river  to  a  point  south  of 
the  Kootenay  post.  They  call  it  "the  plains"  there  because  the 
rest  of  the  country  is  densely  wooded  and  these  are  compara- 
tively open,  and  comparatively  level.  The  general  character 
of  the  country  is  the  same.  I  have  said  that  our  camps  were 
but  a  few  miles  distant,  our  two  principal  camps  were  both  at 
the  49th  parallel.  Our  third  camp  was  nearer  to  the  post,  avc 
only  occupied  that  a  few  days. 

Int.  lO.-^Were  not  the  excursions  you  have  spoken  of  on 
these  plains  as  made  on  foot,  and  on  horseback,  made  from  the 
two  camps  by  the  boundary  line  ? 

Ans. — They  were. 

hit.  11. — Did  any  one  of  these  excursions,  except  the  one 
you  have  particularly  mentioned,  extend  to  the  Catholic  Mis- 
sion ? 

Ans. — They  did  not.  I  went  to  the  vicinity  of  the  post 
once,  but  I  only  examined  the  buildings  at  the  post  once. 

Int.  12. — Who  told  you  that  the  buildings  near  the  Catholic 
Mission  constituted  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  post  at 
Kootenay  ? 

Ans. — Quite  a  number  of  persons  attached  to  the  Boundary 
Survey,  some  of  whom  had  previously  visited  that  place.  Be- 
fore I  went  to  it  some  of  them  spoke  of  the  huts  there. 

Int.  13. — Were  not  each  and  every  one  who  spoke  to  you 


rM 


about  this  place,  persons  who  came  with  you,  and  not  resi- 
dents of  tlic  country  ? 

A)is. — Xone  of  them  were  residents  of  that  part  of  the  coun- 
try ;  they  were  all  attached  to  the  Boundary  Commission. 

Int.  14. — Were  not  three  out  of  the  four  buildings  you  have 
described  as  constituting  the  post  near  the  Catholic  Mission, 
at  least  half  the  length  of  that  Mission-house  ? 

Ans. — They  were  not  half  the  length,  to  the  best  of  my 
recollection  ;  one  of  them  was  larger  than  the  others. 

Int.  15. — What  was  the  height  of  those  buildings  ? 

Ans. — I  could  not  say  the  exact  height;  they  seemed  to 
me  lower  than  we  should  ordinarily  build  log  houses. 

Int.  10. — Did  you  go  into  either  of  these  houses? 

Ans. — I  did  not,  the  doors  were  shut ;  I  only  entered  the 
church? 

Int.  17. — Who  was  Mr.  King  that  pointed  out  the  house 
and  said  it  was  Linklater's  ?  Was  he  connected  with  the 
Boundary  Commission  ? 

Ans. — Mr.  King  was  commissary  and  quarter-master  of  the 
Boundary  Commission. 

Int.  18. — Have  you  any  idea  of  the  size  of  the  house  you 
call  Linklater's,  its  length,  width,  and  height,  or  of  what  the 
roof  consisted,  or  can  you  state  positively  whether  it  was  built 
of  round  or  hewn  logs  ? 

Ans. — It  was  less  than  half  the  size  of  the  church,  I  should 
say  ;  to  the  best  of  my  recollection  the  roof  was  like  the  roof 
of  the  church,  constructed  like  the  roofs  of  that  country,  of 
bark  and  mud,  and  the  timber  round  logs  ;  I  think  if  they  had 
been  squared  I  should  have  noticed  it ;  they  were  very  infer- 
ior log  buildings,  from  their  appearance  outside ;  I  don't  know 
what  they  were  inside,  as  I  did  not  enter  them. 

Int.  19. — Was  this  house  of  Linklater's  as  high  as  the  Cath- 
olic Mission? 

Ans. — Not  nearly  so  high,  it  was  very  low. 

J.    M.    AliDEN. 


562 


District  of  Columbia,       ^ 
County  of  Washington ;  /    ' 

I,  Nicholas  Callan,  a  notary  public,  in  and  for  the  county 
and  District  aforesaid,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoiiif^ 
deposition,  hereto  attached,  of  James  Madison  Alden,  a  wit- 
ness produced,  sworn,  and  examined  by  and  on  behalf  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  matter  of  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  against  the  same,  now  pending  before  the  Brit- 
ish and  American  Joint  Commission  for  the  final  adjustment 
thereof,  was  taken  and  reduced  to  writing  in  the  city  of  Wash- 
ington, under  my  direction,  by  a  person  agreed  upon  by  Caleb 
Cushing,  attorney  for  the  United  States,  and  Edward  Lander, 
attorney  for  the  said  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  commencing 
on  the  twelfth  and  ending  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  Septem- 
ber, 1867. 

I  further  certify  that  I  administered  the  following  oath  to 
said  witness  before  his  examination  : 

"You  swear  that  the  evidence  you  shall  give  in  the  matter 
of  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  United 
States  of  America,  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth;  so  help  you  God." 

I  further  certify  that  after  the  same  was  reduced  to  writ- 
ing, the  deposition  of  said  witness  was  careful  read  to  and 
then  signed  by  him  in  the  presence  of  the  counsel  for  the 
United  States  and  of  the  claimants. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
[seal.]     and  seal  of  oflSce  this  fourteenth  day  of  September, 

one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-seven. 
,•      .-  -      .,^  N.  Callan, 

,  .  Notary  Public. 


ounty 
?goincr 

a  wit- 
of  tlio 
dsoii's 
5  Brit- 
tmeiit 
Wash. 
Caleb 
mdcr, 
mciiKr 
(ptem- 

ath  to 


natter 
Jiiited 
1,  and 


I  writ- 
0  and 
>r  the 

'•  hand 
mbor, 


hlie. 


Iritis^  attb  American  ^oint  Sommissiim. 


I  ]Sr  D  E  X 


TO 


TESTIMONY  ON  PART  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


IN    THE    MATTER   OF   THE 


CLAIM  OF  THE  HUDSON'S  BAY  COMPANY. 


Vol.  II. — ATLANTIC. 


>i 


■"""'S^-^- 


S*'it.'».".'WM,-; 


INDEX. 


A.        • 

Astoria,  Description  of. 

Major  General  Rufus  Ingalls,   witness,  p.   10, 

ans.  42,  43;  p.  15,  ans.  19. 
Justus  Steinberger,  witness,  p.  54,  ans.  10. 
Hon.  James  W.  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  29,  ans.  24, 

25. 
Thomas  Nelson,  p.  90,  ans.  14. 
Rear  Admiral  Charles  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  275, 

ans.  4;  p.  276,  ans.  6. 
Hon.  William  Gilpin,  p.  335,  ans.  25,  20. 
James  G.  Swan,  witness,  p.  343,  ans.  2,  3,  4. 
George  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  400,  ans.  6;  p.  420, 

ans.  2,  3,  4,  5,  6 ;  p.  426,  ans.  40,  41. 
Titian  R.  Peale,  witness,  p.  344,  ans.  6,  7. 
William  B.  McMurtrie,  witness,  p.  373,  ans.  17, 

18. 
Buildings  at,  in  1844. 

Hon.  James  W.  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  44,  ans. 

69,  70;  p.  49,  ans.  1. 
Hon.  William  Gilpin,  p.  339,  ans.  11. 
Enclosed  Land  there. 

Hon.  James  W.  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  44,  ans.  71. 
Timber  at. 

Hon.  James  W.  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  45,  ans.  72. 
Its  present  condition. 

Justus  Steinberger,  witness,  p.  57,  ans.  11. 
Buildings  at,  in  1841. 

Rear  Admiral  Charles  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  276, 

ans.  8;  p.  289,  ans.  1,  2;  p.  290,  ans.  4,  G. 
Titian  R.  Peale,  'witness,  p.  345,  ans.  7. 


Astoria,  Description  of,  (continued.) 
Buildings  at,  in  1850. 

William  B.  McMurtrie,  witness,  p.  373,  ans.  17> 
18. 
Buildings  at,  in  1853. 

George  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  401,  ans.  7. 
Trade  of.  » 

Titian  R.  Peale,  witness,  p.  345,  ans.  8;  p.  347, 

ans.  10. 
George  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  427,  ans.  45;  p.  532, 
ans.  81,  82,  88,  84,  85. 

B. 

Bois^,  Fort,  Description  of. 

Hon.  James  W.  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  27,  ans.  17; 

p.  41,  ans.  46. 
Major  Robert  McFeely,  witness,  p.  121,  ans.  15; 

p.  122,  ans.  16. 
Brevet  Colonel  Marcus  A.  Beno,  witness,  p.  211, 

ans.  11. 
Major  Robert  McFeely,  witness,  p.  122,  ans.  17. 
William  R.  Gibson,  witness,  p.  167,  ans.  20;  p. 

168,  ans.  21;  p.  172,  ans.  21 ;  p.  178,  ans.  12. 
Marcus  A.  Reno,  witness,  p.  209,  ans.  2,  3. 
Hon.  William  Gilpin,  p.  332,  ans.  12. 
Edward  J.  Allen,  witness,  p.  365,  ans.  2;  p.  366, 

ans.  3,  4,  5,  6,  7. 
George  Suckley,  M.  D.,  witness,  p.  542,  ans.  13, 

15 ;  p.  547,  ans.  29,  80. 
Trade  at. 

George  B.  Simpson,  p.  262,  ans.  11. 
Edward  J.  Allen,  witness,  p.  866,  ans.  7. 
George  Suckley,  witness,  p.  543,  ans.  16. 
Buildings  at. 

Marcus  A.  Reno,  witness,  p.  209,  ans.  4 ;  p.  210, 

ans.  6;  p.  215,  ans.  14,  15,  17;  p.  216,  ans. 

26,  27;  p.  217,  ans.  83. 
George  B.  Simpson,  witness,  p.  261,  ans.  9;  p. 

262,  ans.  10. 


Boise,  Fort,  Description  of,  (continued.) 

Large  Town  at. 

Hon.  James  W.  Nesmith,  p.  41,  ans.  49. 
Land  at. 

Marcus  A.  Reno,  p.  211,  ans.  12. 

George  B.  Simpson,  witness,  p.  — ,  ans.  9;  p. 
263,  ans.  10. 

Edward  J.  Allen,  witness,  p.  366,  ans.  8. 
Grass  at. 

Marcus  A.  Reno,  witness,,  p.  213,  ans.  3,  7;  p. 
214,  ans.  9;  p.  216,  ans.  28. 
Employees  at. 

Edward  J.  Allen,  witness,  p.  366,  ans.  6. 
Cattle  at. 

Edward  J.  Alien,  witness,  p.  366,  ans.  8. 


Ghampoeg,  Description  of. 

Hon.  James  W.  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  28,  ans.  22; 
p.  29,  ans.  23 ;  p.  43,  ans.  64 ;  p.  47,  ans.  65, 
'66. 

Hon.  William  Gilpin,  p.  335,  ans.  24. 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  no  station  at,  in  1841. 

Rear  Admiral  Charles  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  277, 
ans.  19,  20. 

Colville,  Description  of. 

George  Clinton  Gardner,  witness,  p.  194,  ans. 

15,  16,  17,  18,  19,  20,  21 ;  p.  196,  ans.  5,  6, 

7;  p.  197,  ans.  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13;  p.  204, 

ans.  5. 
A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  224,  ans.  12,  13,  14;  p. 

225,  ans.  3,  4 ;  p.  227,  ans.  16 ;  p.  229,  ans. 

33,  37. 
Charles  T.  Gardner,  witness,  p.  323,  ans.  26. 
A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  232,  ans.  7. 
Rear  Admiral  Charles  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  285, 

ans.  52;  p.  286,  ans.  53. 


m\ 


.'  I. 


Colville,  Description  of,  (continued.) 

Sylvester  Mowry,  p.  384,  ans.  2,  3,  5;  p.  387, 

ans.  6,  8,  9;  p.  388,  ans.  11. 
George  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  404,  ans.  14;  p.  405, 
ans.   15;   p.  406,  ans.  16,  18;   p.  439,  ans. 
126|. 
George  Suckley,  M.  D.,  p.   541,  ans.  4,  5;  p. 
643,  ans.  1,3;  p.  544,  ans.  4,  5,  6,  7  ;  p.  545, 
ans.  10,  11,  12 ;  p.  546,  ans.  20,  24. 
Photograph  of. 

G.  C.  Gardner,  witness,  p.  194,  ans.  22,  23;  p. 

197,  ans.  14 ;  p.  199,  ans.  1. 
A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  225,  ans.  15;  p.  230,  ans. 
45,  46. 
Buildings   erected   by  Northwest  Boundary  Commis- 
sion at. 

George  Clinton  Gardner,  witness,  p.  199,  ans.  1, 
2 ;  p.  202,  ans.  3;  p.  203,  ans.  4,  5. 
Trail  from  to  Fort  Hope. 

Geo.  Clinton  Gardner,  witness,  p.  203,  ans.  6, 7; 
p.  204,  ans.  8. 
Valley  of. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  231,  ans.  48,  49;  p..  233, 

ans.  12.  •  : 

George  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  609,  ans.  584. 
Minerals  near. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  231,  ans.  1. 
Land  at. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  232,  ans.  2;  p.  .233,  ans. 

13,14. 
Charles  T.  Gardner,  witness,  p.  323,  ans.  27. 
Lands  in  Colville  valley,  not  subject  to  entry. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  241,  ans.  16. 
Grazing  near. 

George  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  509,  ans.  583. 
Trade  at. 

George  Suckley,  witness,  p.  643,  ans.  16 


Columbia  River. 

Navigation  of. 

Hon.  James  W.  Nesmith,  p.  43,  ans.  60. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  235,  ans.  28,  29,  30,  81, 

32;  p.  236,  ans.  33,  34. 
George  W.  Shoemaker,  witness,  p.  258,  ans.  26; 
.  p.  260,  ans.  45. 

Cost  of. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  231,  ans.  50;  p.  242,  ans. 

28,  29;  p.  247,  ans.  2,  3. 
George  W.  Shoemaker,  witness,  p.  259,  ans.  35. 
Bateaux  in  Upper. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  245,  ans.  1,  2,  3 ;  p.  246, 
ans.  4,  5,  6. 
Steamers  on  Upper. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  246,  ans.  7,  8;  p.  247, 
ans.  1. 
Portage  of.     \,  • 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  246,  ans.  10;  p.  247,  ans. 
6;  p.  248,  ans.  7,  4,  5;  p.  249,  ans.  5. 
'  George  Gibbs,  p.  417,  ans.  40. 

Landings  on. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  249,  ans.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5. 
Percolation  of  water  of. 

Rear  Admiral  Charles  Wilkes,  p.  294,  ans.  33. 
Depth  of  River  at  Vancouver. 

Rear  Admiral  Charles  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  295; 
ans.  41.  , 

Entrance  of. 

Rear  Admiral  Charles  Wilkes,  p.  301,  ans.  4. 
George  Davidson,  witness,  p.  308,  ans.  12. 
Alexander  M.  Harrison,  witness,  p.  315,  ans.  21. 
William  B.  McMurtrie,  witness,  p.  372,  ans.  8. 
Alexander  M.  Harrison,  witness,  p.  317,  ans.  11. 
William  Gibson,  witness,  p.  376,  ans.  11. 
George  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  402,  ans.  10;  p.  431, 
ans.  73;  p.  434,  ans.  86,  87. 
Salmon  Fisheries  on. 

George  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  412,  ans.  29. 


II 


m 


!9ti.R  I 


#5 


8  * 

Columbia  River,  (continued.) 
Map  of  Mouth  of. 

George  Davidson,  ivitness,  p.  306,  ans.  5. 
Williatn  B.  McMurtrie,  witness,  p.  372,  ans.  7, 

4,5. 
William  Gibson,  witness,  p.  375,  ans.  3. 
Cowlitz,  Description  of. 

General  Rufus  Ingalls,  p.  10,  ans.  43;  p.  14, 

ans.  17;  p.  15,  ans.  20. 
Justus  Steinberger,  p.  54,  ans.  10. 
Captain   William   A.  Howard,  witness,  p.  68, 

ans.  6. 
George  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  402,  ans.  12. 
No  Station  at,  in  1841. 

Rear  Admiral  Charles  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  277, 
ans.  17,  18;  p.  290,  ans.  8. 


D. 

Disappointment,  Cape,  Description  of. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  10,  ans.  43. 

James  W.  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  30,  ans.  26,  27; 

p.  45,  ans.  74. 
Rear  Admiral  Charles  Wilkes,  p.  276,  ans.  9, 

11,  12. 
George  Davidson,  witness,  p.  306,  ans  6. 
Alexander  M.  Harrison,  witness,  p.  313,  ans.  10. 
William  B.  McMurtrie,  witness,  p.  371,  ans  6. 
George  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  401,  ans.  9. 
Titian  R.  Peale,  witness,  p.  344,  ans.  3,  4,  5. 
William  Gibson,  witness,  p.  375,  ans.  4,  5,  6,  7, 

8;  p.  376,  ans.  9.  , 

Value  of  land  for  Light-House  at. 

Rear  Admiral  Charles  Wilkes,  p.  277,  ans.  13; 

p.  290,  ans.  7. 
United  States  Buildings  at. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  15,  ans.  21. 
Justus  Steinberger,  p.  53,  ans.  10. 


5) 


Disappointment  Capo,  Description  of,  (continuoil.) 
Value  of  Land  at. 

George  Davidson,   witness,   p.   30G,  ans.   7;  p. 

308,  ans.  11. 
Alexander  M.  Harrison,  witness,  p.  313,  ans.  13  ; 

p.  314,  ans.  17. 
William  Gibson,  witness,  p.  377,  ans.  7. 

Not  occupied  by  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

George  Davidson,  witness,  p.  307.  ans.  8,  9. 
A.  M.  Harrison,  witness,  p.  313,  ans.  11,  12;  p. 

314,  ans.  18. 
J.  G.  Swan,  p.  343,  ans.  0,  7. 
Light-House  at. 

Charles  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  277,  ans.  13;  p.  290, 

ans.  7. 
George  Davidson,  p.  308,  ana.  10. 
A.  M.  Harrison,  witness,  p.  315,  ans.  22. 
W.  B.  McMurtrio,  p.  372,  ans.  9. 
Wm.  Gibson,  p.  370,  ans.  11;  p.  377,  ans.  7. 
A.   M.  Harrison,  p.  314,  ans.  15,  16  ;  p.  317, 

ans.  10,  11. 
A.  M.  Harrison,  witness,  p.  314,  ans.  19,  20. 
W.  B.  McMurtrie,  witness,  p.  372,  ans  10;  p. 

373,  ans.  11,  12. 
Character  of  Land  at. 

J.  11.  Peale,  p.  349,  ans.  1,  2. 

Benj.  Alvord,  p.  350,  ans.  3,  4. 

W.  B.  McMurtrie,  witness,  p.  373,  ans.  12,  14, 

IG. 

Map  of  Mouth  of  Columbia,  "A." 

W.  B.  McMurtrie,  p.  371,  ans.  4,  5, 
Wm.  Gibson,  witness,  p.  375,  ans.  3. 

Value  of,  for  Fortifications. 

Wm.  Gibson,  witness,  p.  377,  ans.  7. 
Governor  Ogden's  supposed  Claim  at. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  428,  ans.  68. 
Vol.  II,  At.— 2. 


10 

F.  •,   ■  ',.      ^  ■"-.■- 

Flat  Head  Post,  Description  of. 

Thomsis  Adams,  witness,  p.  114,  ans.  13,  14,  15. 
Employees  tlicro. 

Thomas  Adams,  witness,  p.  114,  ans.  IG. 
Trade  there. 

Thomas  Adams,  witness,  p.  114,  ans.  17. 

Furs  at.  -^ 

Thomas  Adams,  witness,  p.  115,  ans.  1,  2,  3. 
Number  of  Horses  or  Cattle  at. 

Thomas  Adams,  p,  116,  ans  4. 
Fur  Trade,  Effect  of  Settlement  of  Country  on. 

Rufus  Injralls,  p.  6,  ans.  22 ;  p.  13,  ans.  12. 
W.  R.  Gibson,  witness,  p.  169,  ans.  32. 
Charles  Wilkes,  p.  298,  ans.  55. 
Jno.  F.  Noble,  witness,  p.  395,  ans.  5,  6,  8  ;  p. 

396,  ans.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11. 
George  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  412,  ans.  30;  p.  413, 

ans.  31. 
Charles  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  287,  ans.  58;  p.  288, 
'        ans.  60;  p.  298,  ans.  55. 
Fort  Hall,  Description  of. 

James  W.  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  26,  ans.  15;  p. 

27,  ans.  6;  p.  40,  ans.  41,  42,  43. 
Thomas  Adams,  witness,  p.  112,  ans.  4;  p.  113, 

ans.  5. 
W.  II.  Gibson,  witness,  p.  167,  ans.  17. 
Geo.  B.  Simpson,  witness,  p.  262,  ans.  12. 
William  Gilpin,  witness,  p.  331,  ans.  5,  6 ;  p. 

337,  ans.  2,  3. 
B.  F.  Dowell,  witness,  p.  360,  ans.  10. 
W.  R.  Gibson,  witness,  p.  167,  ans.  18. 
Gordon  Granger,  witness,  p.  379,  ans.  3,  4,  5, 

6;   p.  380,  ans.  8;    p.  382,  ans.  12;  p.  383, 

ans.  14. 
Trade  at. 

Thomas  Adams,  p.  113,  ans.  7,  8,  9. 

Geo.  B.  Simpson,  witness,  p.  261,  ans.  4,  5,  6. 


11 


Fort  Hall,  Description  of,  (continued.) 

William  Gilpin,  witness,  p.  3ol,  ans.  9. 

B.  F.  Dowell,  p.  360,  ans.  11. 

Gordon  Granger,  witness,  p.  380,  ans.  11. 
Country  around. 

Thomas  Adams,  witness,  p.  114,  ans.  11. 
Cattle  and  Horses  at,  in  1853-54. 

Thomas  Adams,  p.  IIG,  ans.  2. 

Geo.  B.  Simpson,  witness,  p.  261,  ans.  7. 
'  Gordon  Granger,  witness,  p.  380,  ans.  12,  13. 

Land  at. 

William  Gilpin,  witness,  p.  331,  ans.  7. 

B.  F.  Dowell,  witness,  p.  360,  ans.  12,  13. 

Gordon  Granger,  witness,  p.  380,  ans.  9,  10. 
Employees  at. 

William  Gilpin,  witness,  p.  331,  ans*.  8. 

Grass  at. 

Gordon    Granger   witness,  p.   380,  ans.  12;  p. 
382,  ans.  11. 

H. 

Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Effect  of  Policy  of  on  Settlement  of  Country. 

James  W.  Nesmith,  p.  33,  ans.  34. 
Their  posts  ample  for  defence  against  Indians. 

James  W.  Nesmith,  p.  47,  ans.  84. 
No  improvement  of  roads,  &c.,  by  Company. 

James  W.  Nesmith,  p.  549,  ans.  2. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  413,  ans.  32. 
Wanted  to  sell  their  rights  in  gross. 

Thomas  Nelson,  p.  89,  ans.  12. 
Cheap  Labor  of. 

11.  McFeely,  witness,  p.  126,  ans.  22. 
Trade  of,  in  1841. 

Charles  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  288,  ans.  60, 
In  1843. 

William  Gilpin,  witness,  p.  333,  ans.  15. 
Company's  Officers  kind  to  Commodore  Wilkes. 
'•  •  '  Charles  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  299,  ans.  63;  p.  303, 


ri 


'!♦ 


h'\ 


t 


ans. 


12 

Hudson's  Bay  Company,  (continued.) 

Estimate,  in  1840,  of  value  uf  Company's  posts  and 
trade  south  of  40th'^. 

Charles  Wilke><,  witncs.«,  p.  oOl,  ans.  o;  p.  302, 
ans.  3,  4. 
Importation  of  goods  at  I'uget's  Sound  by. 

Simpson  P.  Moses,  witness,  p.  327,  ans.  2,  5;  p. 
328,  ans.  8. 
Ballenden,  (Company's  Factor,)  said  Navigation   Col- 
umbia useless  to  Company  under  United  States  Rev- 
enue System. 

Simpson  P.  Moses,  witness,  p.  328,  ans.  1). 
Extent  of  Company's  Claim. 

William  Gilpin,  witness,  p.  335,  ans.  21. 
Cattle  and  Sheep  of. 

William  Gilpin,  witness,  p.  335,  ans.  23. 
Policy  to  settlers. 

William  Gilpin,  witness,  p.  330,  ans.  27. 
Company  wished  large  Reservation  at  Vancouver, 

Benj.  Alvord,  witness,  p.  352,  ans.  9. 
Company's  Transportation  to  Colvile. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  415,  ans.  34. 
Effect  of  discovery  of  gold  on  Company's  business. 

George  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  415,  ans.  35. 
Wished  to  transfer  their  transportation  to  Fraser  river. 
Geo.  Gibbs,  witness,   p.  443,  ans.  152;  p.  444, 
ans.  153. 
Company's  posts  in  American  Territory  unprofitable. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  p.  448,  ans.  188. 
Governor  Ogden's  statement  that  American    Oregon 
not  fur  country. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  p.  494,  ans.  409. 


-,•■■;■'  ^-- ;.--  I.      ''■     ■ 

Indians. 

Policy  of  Hudson's  Bay  Company  to. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  p.  9,  ans.  37;  p.  10,  ans.  39. 
James  W.  Nesmith,  p.  32,  ans.  33. 


13 


Indiana,  Policy  of  Hudson's  IJay  Company  to,  (continued.) 

Geo.  Gil)l)s,  p.  417,  aiis.  .30. 
Company's  trailc  witli. 

James  \V.  Ncsiiiitli,  p.  80,  ans.  21>. 
EfTeLt  of  intercourse  wiili  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

.Tames  \V.  Xosmitli,  witness,  p.  551,  ans.  33. 
War  witli. 

.James  W.  Ncsmitli,  p.  40,  ans.  80,  83. 

George  Gib'us,  p.  410,  ans.  38. 
Depopulation  of. 

Charles  Wilkes,  p.  287,  ans.  57. 

Geo.  Gibhs,  p.  471,  ans.  .•'>3r>. 

K. 

Kootenay  Post,  Description  of. 

G.  C.  Gardner,  witness,  p.  192,  ans.  5,  0,  8;  p. 

193,   ans.  11,    12;    p.  195,  ans.  1;    p.  196, 

ans.  2. 
Charles  I,  Gardner,  witness,  p.  322,  ans.  20;  p. 

323,  ans.  22,  23;  p.  324,  ans.  9;  p.  323,  ans. 

24 ;  p.  324,  ans.  9,  10,  11 ;  p.  325,  ans.  1. 

F.  Hudson,  witness,  p.  33!),  ans.  3,  4,  5,  7,  8, 
9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14 ;  p.  341,  ans.  3,  8,  9,  10. 

Geo.   Gibbs,   witness,  p.  407,  ans.  19  ;  p.  454, 

ans.  219,  220. 
J.  M.  Alden,  p.  552,  ans.  4,  5,  0,  8,  9,  10;  p. 
553,  ans.  11,  12 ;  p.  554,  ans.  18,  14,  15,  17, 
19;  p.  5.50,  ans.  22,  23,  24,  25,  20;  p.  557, 
ans.  29  ;  p.  558,  ans.  37,  38,  1 ;  p.  559,  ans. 
3,  4,  5,  0,  7,  8 ;  p.  500,  ans.  9,  12,  13 ;  p.  501, 
ans.  14,  15,  18,  19  ;  p.  554,  ans.  18. 
Photograph  of  Catholic  Mission  at. 

G.  Clinton  Gardner,  witness,  p.  193,  ans.  9. 
F.  Hudson,  p.  340,  ans.  8. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  p.  407,  ans.  20. 
Kootenay  River. 

.J.  M.  Alden,  p.  551,  ans.  3;  p.  555,  ans.  20,  21. 


''Ml 


I!' 


t  ■■ 


?( 


'"», 


rt''  ' 

Ik 


14 

Kootenay  Post,  Description  of,  (continued.) 
Photograph  of  building  ut. 

J.  M.  Alden,  p.  6r>3,  ans.  11;  p.  556,  ans.  28; 
p.  557,  ans.  20,  31,  33,  84,  35. 


Military  Authorities. 

Wished  to  protect  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  rights. 

Kufus  Ingalis,  p.  15,  ans.  22. 
Their  views  as  to  c.xpinition  of  Coin[iany'8  Charter. 

llufus  Ingalis,  p.  15,  ans.  22, 
Who  in  command  at  Astoria. 

Justus  Steinberger,  p.  58,  ana.  12. 
Miscellaneous.  , 

St.  Helen's. 

Justus  Steinberger,  p.  67,  ans.  9. 
Ranier. 

Justus  Steinberger,  p.  67,  ans.  9. 
Report  as  to  value  of  buildings  bv    dilitary  Board  at 
Vancouver. 

Chancey  McKee,  p.  78,  ans.  5. 

Andrew  J.  Smith,  p.  84,  ans.  4. 

C.  C.  Augur,  p.  101,  ans.  4. 
Mr.  Daniel  Webster  called  attention  to  value  of  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company's  Claims. 

Thomas  i^elson  witness,  p.  87,  ans.  4. 
Information  thereon  sought  from  Dr.  John  McLaughlin, 

p.  87,  ans.  6;  p.  98. 
Courts  of  Oregon  open  to  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Thomas  Nelson,  p.  90,  ans.  2. 
Price  of  sea-otter  skins. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  p.  162,  ans.  1. 
Value  of  lumber  in  Umpqua  Valley. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  p.  153,  ans.  11. 
Davis  farm. 

J.  H.  P.  Huntington,  p.  157,  ans.  46,47,  48;  p. 
163,  ans.  21,  22. 


ITi 


MiHCcIliinoous,  (continued.) 

StatemcMit  of  Mr.  Ogdcn. 

W.   K.   Ginsori,  p.  1(J!»,  iuis.  L'8,  2!»,  80,  31 ;  p. 

170,  aiis.  33;   p.  174,  ans.  31,  32,  33,  34;  p. 

17r>.  ans.  37,  38,  31),  40. 

Account  of  Hudson's  Buy  Company  vs.  United  States. 

11.  J.  Atkinson,  p.  183,  ans.  U,  7,  8;  p.  184,  ans. 

12;  p.  185,  ans.  13;  p.  180,  an*.  14. 

Trails,  cost  of. 

G.  C.  Gartlner,  p.  204,  ans.  8. 

Adobes. 

Marcus  A.  Reno,  p.  210,  ans.  8,  !♦,  10  ;  p.  21G, 
•in a   90   o;>    01    •-)-, 

(IMS.    M~,    *•*>,    -i^,    .>''• 

Geo.  W.  Shoemaker,  p.  257,  ans.  25. 

Gordon  Granger,  p.  380,  ans.  14,  15;  p.  381, 
ans.  10;  p.  385,  ans.  9;  p.  380,  ans.  10. 
Thompson's  farm  ner.r  Umpqua. 

Lewis  S.  Thompson,  p.  221,  ans.  12. 
Cain,  A.  J.,  in  real  estate  business  in  Oregon. 
•  A.  J.  Cain,  p.  222,  ans.  1. 

Clap-board  houses. 

,     A.  J.  Cain,  p.  232,  ans.  4. 
Proportion  of  land  in  Washington  Territory  in  private 
ownership. 

A.  J.  Cain,  p.  233,  ans.  10. 
Population  of  Washington  Territory. 

A.  J.  Cain,  p.  233,  ans.  11. 
,   .  Gold  excitement. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  235,  ans.  27. 

Geo.  W.  Shoemaker,  p.  256,  ans.  11. 
Umatilla. 

A.  J.  Cain,  p.  237,  ans.  38. 
Speculative  value  of  Town  Sites  in  Washington. 

A.  J.  Cain,  p.  237,  ans.  40. 
Difference  between  perfect  title  and  squatter's  title. 

A.  J.  Cain,  d.  241,  ans.  15. 
Palouze  Landing. 

A.  J.  Cain,  p.  242,  ans.  24,  2.5,  26,  27. 


I 


Ih 


'"^wWl^^^ 


Id 


Miscellaneous,  (continued.) 

Bitter  Hoot  Mountains. 

A.  J.   Cain,   p.  244,   ans.  4;   p.  245,  ans.  5,  6, 

,;■  8, 9. 

Railroad  at  Cascade  Portasrc. 

A.  J.  Cain,  p.  247,  ans.  4,  5,  6;  p.  248,  ans.  1, 
2,  3,  5;  p.  241),  ans.  G;  p.  250,  ans.  7,  8,  1, 
2,  3;  p.  251,  ans.  4,  1. 
Wagon  Roads  at  Cascades  and  Dalles. 

A.  J.  Cain,  p.  248,  ans.  2. 
Shoemaker's  farm  sold. 

Geo.  W.  Shoemaker,  p.  255,  ans.  4;  p.  256,  ans. 
6,7,8. 
Pillar  Rock,  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  no  station  there 
in  1841. 

Charles  Wilkes,  p.  277,  ans.  15,  16. 
Cattle  in  Country  in  1841. 

Charles  Wilkes,  p.  297,  ans.  50. 
Dr.  McLaughlin  kind  to  settlers. 

Charles  Wilkes,  p.  299,  ans.  62. 
Price  of  Cattle  in  Willamette  Valley  in  1841. 

Charles  Wilkes,  p.  301,  ans.  3. 
Map  of  Mouth  of  Columbia  River. 

A.  M.  Harrison,  p.  312,  ans.  5;  p.  313,  ans.  8. 
Chapman's  Claim  at  Umpqua. 

C.  T.  Gardner,  p.  321,  ans.  9.    . 
Coweeman,  or  Monticello. 

C.  J.  Gardner,  p.  325,  ans.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7. 
Ciiscade  Range,  climate  of  country  east  and  west  of  it. 

Benj.  Alvord,  p.  357,  ans.  9,  10,  11. 
Price  of  lumber  at  Dalles  in  18551. 

Benj.  Alvord,  p.  354,  ans.  13.  ' 

Severe  winter  in  1852. 

Benj.  Alvord,  p.  355,  ans.  1. 
Cost  of  expedition  across  continent. 

Wm.  Gilpin,  p.  338,  ans.  5. 
Where  timber  to  build  post  at  Vancouver  came  from. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  p.  411,  ans.  26. 


17 


Miscellaneous,  (continued.) 

Photograph  of  Vancouver. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  p.  412,  ans.  27. 
How  Pacific  Railroad  Survey  and  Northwestern  Boun- 
dary Commission  got  their  supplies. 
Geo.  Gibbs,  p.  414,  ans.  33. 
Kettle  Falls. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  p.  417,  ans.  41. 
Indebtedness  of  settlers  to  Dr.  McLaughlin. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  p.  418,  ans.  42. 
Explanation   of  Geo.  Gibbs  in  relation  to  his  corres- 
pondence with  Governor  Ogden. 
Geo.  Gibbs,  p.  418,  ans.  43. 
Further  explanatiou  by,  p.  418,  ans.  43. 
Published  statements  of  Geo.  Gibbs  about  Hudson's 
Bay  Company's  Post,  never  controverti^d. 
Geo.  Gibbs,  p.  4G1,  ans.  201. 
Why  some  interrogatories  prepared  by  Geo.  Gibbs,  p. 

481,  ans.  402. 
Water  power  near  Colvile  not  claimed  by  Hudson's 
Bay  Company. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  p.  508,  ans.  576,  577,  578. 
Buildings  erected  at  Vancouver  by  Ingalls. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  p.  525,  ans.  2. 
Hudson's  Bay  Company's  Buildings  at  Vancouver,  at 
what  cost  they  could  have  been  erected. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  p.  525,  ans.  5 ;  p.  520,  ans.  0 :  p. 
5e35,  ans.  39,  42 ;  p.  530,  ans.  47. 
Pillar  Rock,  Description  of. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  402,  ans.  11. 
Portland. 

James  W.  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  26,  ans.  13 ;  p. 

38,  ans.  25. 
Justus  Steinberger,  witness,  p.  63,  ans.  9. 
Thomas  Nelson,  witness,  p.  89,  ans.  13. 
Justus  Steinberger,  witness,  p.  50,  ans.  8. 
A.  Pleasanton,  witness,  p.  141,  ans.  21. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  witness,  p.  152,  ans.  3. 

Vol.  II,  At.— 3. 


i!'; 


It, 


"crs" 


18 

Miscellaneous,  (continued.) 

Settlement  of  the  country. 

James  W.  Nesmith,  p.  38,  ans.  3r>. 
Geo.  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  415,  ans.  36;  p.  416, 
ans.  37. 

N. 
Nez  Percd,  (old  Fort.) 

Farm  at. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  witness,  p.  149,  ans.  32, 

33. 

W.  R.  Gibson,  witness,  p.  166,  ans.  7. 

Enclosures  at. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  witness,  p.  151,  ans  41. 

Land  around. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  p.  1.51,  ans.  42 ;  p.  164, 

ans.  29,  30 ;  p.  165,  ans.  32,  33,  1. 

Uses  of. 

W.  R.  Gibson,  witness,  p.  168,  ans.  22,  23. 

Nisqually. 

Buildings  at. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  15,  ans.  20. 

0. 

Okanagan,  Description  of. 

G.  Clinton  Gardner,  witness,  p.  195,  ans.  24, 

25,  26. 
Charles  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  284,  ans.  48,  49,  50, 

51. 
Sylvester  Mowry,  witness,  p.  385,  ans.  6,  7 ;  p. 

388,  ans.  15,  16,  17 ;  p.  389,  ans.  21. 
George    jibbs,  witness,  p.  407,  ans.  19;  p.  447, 

ans.  181 ;  p.  449,  ans.  189 ;  p.  542,  ans.  8,  9. 
George  Suckley,  p.  542,  ans.  8,  9 ;  p.  546,  ans. 

22,  23. 
Fur-bearing  Animals  scarce  in  country  around. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  460,  ans.  195,  196. 
Trade  at. 

Geo.  Suckley,  witness,  p.  543,  ans.  16. 


19 


N 


U. 

Umpqua,  Description  of. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  witness,  p.  146,  ans.  6, 10, 

11,  12,  13,  14,  15;  p.  147,  ans.  IG,  17. 
L.  S.  Thompson,  witness,  p.  218,  ans.  3,  4,  5. 
William  Gilpin,  witness,  p.  336,  ans.  20. 
J.  H.  P.  Huntington,  witness,  p.  148,  ans.  20; 

p.  154,  ans.  18,  20,  21,  22,  23,  24,  25,  26 ;  p. 

160,  ans.  1 ;  p.  161,  ans.  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10 ; 

p.  162,  ans.  14. 
J.  S.  Thompson,  witness,  p.  218,  ans.  3. 
Charles  T.  Gardner,  witness,  p.  323,  ans.  2,  3. 
B.  F.  Dowell,  witness,  p.  358,  ans.  2,  3,  4,  5,  6; 

p.  359,  ans.  7. 
Charles  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  286,  ans.  55,  56. 
Charles  T.  Gardner,  witness,  p.  322,  ans.  14. 

B.  F.  Dowell,  witness,  p.  363,  ans.  5,  6,  7,  9, 10, 
11 ;  p.  364,  ans.  12,  13,  14. 

W.  J.  Terry,  witness,  p.  391,  ans.  9, 10,  11 ;  C. 
T.  Gardner,  witness,  p.  322,  ans.  14. 
Buildings  at,  burned  in  1853. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  p.  148,  ans.  21. 
Trail  from. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  witness,  p.  152,  ans.  2. 
Price  of  labor  at. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  witness,  p.  154,  ans.  18; 
p.  162,  ans.  12,  13. 
Land  at.  Value  of. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  witness,  p.  155,  ans.  27, 

32 ;  p.  162,  ans.  16,  17,  18 ;  p.  162,  ans.  15. 
L.  S.  Thompson,  witness,  p.  218,  ans.  4. 

C.  T.  Gardner,  witness,  p.  323,  ans.  2,  3. 
B,  F.  Dowell,  witness,  p.  359,  ans.  8,  9. 

Grasshoppers  at. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  witness,  p.  163,  ans.  20. 
Cattle  at. 

L.  S.  Thompson,  witness,  p.  218,  ans.  7;  p.  220, 
ans.  7,  8,  9. 


20 

Umpqua,  Description  of,  (continued.) 
Chapman's  Farm  at. 

L.  S.  Thompson,  p.  219,  ans.  10. 
C.  T.  Gardner,  witness,  p.  323,  ans.  1 ;  p.  324, 
ans.  5. 
.     Umpqua  River. 

L.  S.  Thompson,  witness,  p.  219,  ans.  4 ;  p.  220, 
ans.  5. 
Trade  at. 

L.  S.  Thompson,  witness,  p.  222,  ans.  7. 


V. 

Vancouver,  Description  of. 

Bufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  2,  ans.  G,  7 ;   p.  3, 
:/       ans.  10,  11. 
^j;*      James  W.  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  37,  ans.  19,  20. 
Thomas  Nelson,  witness,  p.  88,  ans.  9. 
Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  4,  ans.  12,  13,  14,  15, 

16;  p.  5,  ans.  20;  p.  6,  ans.  23,  24,  25;  p. 

11,  ans.  46. 
U.  S.  Grant,  witness,  p.  20,  ans.  10. 
James  W.  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  23,  ans.  2;  p. 

24,  ans.  7;  p.  23,  ans.  4. 
Justus  Steinberger,  witness,  p.  59,  ans.  3,  4. 
Charles  B.  Wagner,  witness,  p.  60,  ans.  5;  p. 

63,  ans.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5. 
W.  A.  Howard,  witness,  p.  67,  ans.  4. 
Chancey  McKeever,  witness,  p.  78,  ans.  78;  p. 

81,  ans.  1. 
General  Andrew  J.  Smith,  witness,  p.  84,  ans. 

6,7. 
Thomas  Nelson,  witness,  p.  89,  ans.  10;  p.  90, 

ans.  2,  3. 
General  Jas.  A.  Hardie,  witness,  p.  107,  ans.  3; 

p.  Ill,  ans.  1. 
Major  R.  McFeely,  witness,  p.  119,  ans  4. 
Jas.  A.  Hardie,  witness,  p.  11. 


21 


Vancouver,  Description  of,  (continued.) 

Major  R.  McFeely,  witness,  p.  120,  ans.  6,  7 ; 

p.  127,  ans.  3 ;  p.  128,  ans.  4. 
General  A.  Fleasanton,  witness,  p.  135,  ans.  4, 

5,6. 
General  P.  H. 'Sheridan,  witness,  p.  267,  ans.  3, 

4 ;  p.  269,  ans.  5. 
Charles  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  278,  ans.  25;  p.  279, 

ans.  26,  27,  29,  31;  p.  280,  ans.  33;  p.  281, 

ans.  39  ;  p.  291,  ans.  10. 
William  Gilpin,  witness,  p.  333,  ans.  16,  17,  18, 

19,  20. 
T.  R,  Peale,  witness,  p.  345,  ans.  9,  10,  11;  p. 

346,  ans.  12 ;  p.  347,  ans.  11 ;  p.  348,  ans.  13. 
Benj.  Alvord,  witness,  p.  350,  ans.  3 ;  p.  351, 

ans.  4,  5,  6,  7,  8 ;  p.  352,  ans.  1,  2,  3 ;  p.  353, 

ans.  4,  5,  6,  10,  11,  12 ;  p.  354,  ans.  19,  20 ; 

p.  355,  ans.  21. 
Geo.  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  408,  ans.  21. 
Rufus  Ingalls,  p.  524,  ans.  1;  p.  525,  ans.  3;  p. 

526,  ans.  7,  8. 

Fur  Trade  of. 

J.  R.  Peale,  witness,  p.  348,  ans.  13,  14,  15. 

Claim  of  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  2,  ans.  5. 
General  U.  S.  Grant,  witness,  p.  19,  ans.  7. 
Chas.  B.  Wagner,  witness,  p.  61,  ans.  8. 

Lands  of  Hudson's  Bay  Company  occupied  by  United 
States  and  citizens. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  3,  ans.  9. 
Change  in  Occupation  of  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  3,  ans.  10. 
Horses  and  Cattle  at. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  4,  ans.  16. 

C.  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  281,  ans.  40. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  411,  ans.  24. 


22 

"Vancouver,  Description  of,  (continued.) 

Relation  between  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  United 
States  troops. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  5,  ans.  17 ;  p.  10,  ans. 

4'''. 
General  U.  S.  Grant,  witness,  p.  21,  ans.  11. 
Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  5,  ans.  19 ;  p.  12,  ans. 

6,  7,  8,  9;  p.  16,  ans.  23,  24. 
U.  S.  Grant,  p.  22,  ans.  10. 
TJ.  S.  Military  Post  at. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  5,  ans.  18,  20;  p. 
525,  ans.  4;  p.  528,  ans.  2,  3,  4,  5;  p.  529, 
ans.  6,  7,  8,  9 ;  p.  530,  ans.  10,  11,  16;  p. 
531,  ans.  17,  19,  20,  21,  22;  p.  532,  ans.  24, 
25,  26,  28 ;  p.  533,  ans.  29,  30. 
Land  at. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  6,  ans.  26,  27 ;  p.  7, 

ans.  28;  p.  8,  ans.  ^'^s  P*  10,  ans.  41;  p.  11, 

ans.  45,  46 ;  p.  12,  ans.  3 ;  p.  14,  ans.  13, 14, 

15,  16. 

General  U.  S.  Grant,  witness,  p.  21,  ans.  2,  3, 

4;  p.  19,  ans.  8,  9;  p.  22,  ans.  8. 
Justus  Steinbcrger,  witness,  p.  52,  ans.  6. 
J.  A.  Hardie,  witness,  p.  108,  ans.  6. 
R.  McFeely,  wimess,  p.  120,  ans.  8,  9,  10,  11. 
Relations   between    Hudson's   Bay   Company    at  and 
Settlers. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  7,  ans.  29;  p.  12,  ans. 
4;  p.  17,  ans.  1. 

Injury  to  Town  of,  from  policy  of  Company. 
Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  8,  ans.  30. 

Town  of. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  8,  ans.  31. 
Justus  Steinberger,  witness,  p.  53,  ans.  8. 
Chauncey  McKeever,  p.  79,  ans.  7. 
James  W.  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  25,  ans.  9,  10; 
p.  26,  ans.  12 ;  p.  30,  aus.  30 ;  p.  31,  ans.  31. 


BSSB 


23 

Vancouver,  Description  of,  (continued.) 
Town  of. 

Justus  Steinberger,  witness,  p.  51,  ans.  4 ;  p.  52, 
ans.  7. 

C.  B.  Wagner,  witness,  p.  61,  ans.  10,  11;  p. 
62,  ans.  12,  14,  15,  16;  p.  65,  ans.  10;  p.  66, 
ans.  16,  17,  18;   p.  67,  ans.  4. 

W.  A.  Howard,  witness,  p.  67,  ans.  5 ;  p.  69, 
ans.  3,  4. 

Thos.  Nelson,  witness,  p.  89,  ans.  13. 
J.  A.  Hardie,  witness,  p.  109,  ans.  7. 
A.  Pleasanton,  witness,  p.  137,  ans.  10. 
C.  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  295,  ans.  40,  41 ;  p.  296, 
ans.  42. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  411,  ans.  25. 
How  Company  paid  their  employees. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  8,  ans.  24. 
Price  of  wages  and  materials  at. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  9,  ans.  35,  36. 

Benj.  Alvord,  witness,  p.  354,  ans.  18. 
Hudson's  Bay  Company's  vessels  at. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  11,  ans.  46. 

James  W.  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  31,  ans.  31. 
Hay  raised  at. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  11,  ans.  2. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  463,  ans.  275. 
People  sought  shelter  at  during  Indian  War. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  13,  ans.  10,  11. 

Description  of  country  around. 

C.  B.  Wagner,   witness,  p.  60,  ans.  7;   p.  61, 
ans.  9. 

C.  C.  Augur,  witness,  p.  102,  ans.  10;  p.  103, 
ans.  1. 

Jas.  A.  Hardie,  witness,  p.  108,  ans.  5. 
C.  Wilkes,  p.  296,  ans.  46. 


24 


Yanoouver,  Description  of,  (continued.) 

Improvements  by  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  country 
around. 

C.  B.  Wagner,  witness,  p.  63,  ans.  17. 
Bufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  527,  ans.  14 ;  p.  538, 
ans.  65,  66. 

Forests  near,  deadened  by  fire. 

Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  528,  ans.  15. 
Report  of  Military  Board  on  Hudson's  Bay  Company's 
buildings  at. 

J.  K.  Barnes,  witness,  p.  70,  ans.  5 ;  p.  71,  ans. 

6;  p.  75,  ans.  5. 
Chauncey  McKee,  witness,  p.  81. 

C.  C.  Augur,  witness,  p.  104. 

D.  H.  Vinton,  witness,  p.  129,  anf.  4,5;  p.  130, 
ans.  1,  7;  p.  131,  ans.  5 ;  p.  133,  A. 

Merchandizing  at,  principal  business  of  Company  in 
1852. 

Thos.  Nelson,  witness,  p.  89,  ans.  11. 

Land  at. 

A.  Pleasanton,  witness,  p.  136,  ans.  8. 
C.  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  282,  ans.  42 ;  p.  295,  ans. 
39 ;  p.  280,  ans.  34,  35 ;  p.  300,  ans.  1. 
Mills  at. 

C.  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  280,  ans.  37,  38 ;  p.  292, 

ans.  17 ;  p.  293,  ans.  18. 
Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  527,  ans.  10,  11,  12, 
13. 

Inundation  at. 

C.  Wilkes,  p.  282,  ans.  43;  p.  283,  ans.  44;  p. 
296,  ans.  49. 

-       Photograph  of. 

Benj.  Alvord,  p.  352. 

When  Hudson's  Bay  Company  left. 

Benj.  Alvord,  witness,  p.  355,  ans.  22 ;  p.  356, 
ans.  4,  6. 


'■  •>*   .'•  •■ 


*mm 


25 

Vancouver,  Description  of,  (continued.) 
Sauvie's  Island. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  410,  ans.  23;  p.  461, 
ans.  263,  264. 
Orchard  at. 

Geo.  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  412,  ans.  28. 
Donation  Claims,  near  taken  by  Company's  employees, 
Rufus  Ingalls,  witness,  p.  526,  ans.  9. 


W. 
Walla-Walla,  Description  of. 

James  W,  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  28,  ans.  19 ;  p. 

41,  ans.  50;  p.  42,  ans.  51 ;  p.  28,  ans.  20,  21 ; 

p.  42,  ans.  53. 
Justus  Steinberger,  witness,  p.  54,  ans.  10;  p. 

58,  ans.  13. 
R.  McFeely,  witness,  p.  121,  ans.  12, 13,  14. 
S.  Mowry,  witness,  p.  385,  ans.  8. 
W.  J.  Terry,  witness,  p.  390,  ans.  7. 
R.  McFeely,  p.  124,  ans.  14,  15 ;  p.  125,  ans. 

17. 
J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  witness,  .p.  163,  ans.  ^3. 
W.  R.  Gibson,  p.  167,  ans.  11,  13,  14,  15. 
M.  A.  Reno,  witness,  p.  212,  ans.  16. 
A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  223,  ans.  4,  5,  6,  7,  9 ; 

p.  238,  ans.  46. 
J.  G.  Noble,  witness,  p.  395,  ans.  13 ;  p.  396, 

ans.  14,  15, 16,  17, 18,  19. 
Geo.  Gibbs,  witness,  p.  403,  ans.  13. 
Geo.  Suckley,  witness,  p.  542,  ans.  11 ;  p.  546, 

ans.  24,  25,  26 ;  p.  547,  ans.  28,  29. 

Indians  of. 

James  W,  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  42,  ans.  56,  57. 

Valley  of. 

James  W.  Nesmith,  witness,  p.  48,  ans.  63 ;  p. 

158,  ans.  56. 
G.  W.  Shoemaker,  witness,  p.  258,  ans.  82. 
Vol.  II,  A».— 4. 


26 

Walia-Walla,  Description  of,  (continued.) 
Valley  of. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  231,  ans.  48,  49 ;  p.  288, 
ans.  15,  16, 17;  p.  241,  ans.  17,  18;  p.  242, 
ans.  80. 
Gi  W.  Shoemaker,  witness,  p.  2.55,  ans.  21,  22. 
United  States  forces  at. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  witness,  p.  158,  ans.  52. 
G.  W.  Shoemaker,  witness,  p.  259,  ans.  41. 
Lands  at. 

W.  R.  Gibson,  witness,  p.  168,  ans.  24,  25,  26. 
M.  A.  Reno,  witness,  p.  212,  ans.  17,  18,  20. 
A.  J.  Gain,  p.  224,  ans.  10 ;  p.  237,  ans.  41,  44, 

45. 
Geo.  W.  Shoemaker,  witness,  p.  254,  ans.  17,  18. 
M.  A.  Reno,  witness,  p.  211,  ans.  13,  14. 
A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  225,  ans.^  5 ;  p.  227,  ansi 

14 ;  p.  238,  ans.  54. 
William  Gilpin,  witness,  p.  288,  ans.  6,  7. 
•         B.  F.  Dowell,  p.  362,  ans.  20. 

W.  J.  Terry,  witness,  p.  390,  ans.  6. 
Description  of. 

William  Gilpin,  witness,  p.  338,  ans.  8< 
Roads  at. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  224,  ana.  11. 
Grazing  at. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  227,  ans.  13. 
G.  Shoemaker,  p.  259,  ans.  36,  38. 
Rent  of  store  at. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  227,  ans.  15 ;  p.  238,  anSi 
47,  48,  49,  60. 

Town  of. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  233,  ans.  19. 
J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  witness,  p.  157,  ans.  50, 
51. 

•     United  States  Post  of. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  234,  ans.  20. 


27 

Walla  Walla,  Description  of,  (continued.) 
River  of. 

A.  J.  Cain)  witness^  p.  234,  ans.  2l. 
Description  of. 

G.  W.  Shoemaker,  witness,  p.  254,  ans.  19,  20i 
C.  Wilkes,  witness,  p.  283,  ans.  46,  47. 
W.  Gilpin,  witness,  p.  332,  ans.  14. 

B.  F.  Dowell,  witness,  p.  360,  ans.  14,  15,  16, 17. 
W.  J.  Terry,  witness,  p.  390,  ans.  2,  3,  4,  6;  p. 

891,  ans.  8. 

Buildings  at,  repaired  by  Van  Sycle. 

G.  W.  Shoemaker,  witness,  p.  256,  ans.  10,  Bt 
Mills  in  valley  of. 

G.  W.  Shoemaker,  witness,  p.  259,  ans.  40t 
Why  Hudson's  Bay  Company  left. 

B.  F.  Dowell,  witness,  p.  861,  ans.  18. 
Trade  at. 

Geo.  Suckley,  witness,  p.  548,  ans.  16. 
Wallula,  Description  of. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  witness,  p.  150,  ans.  86, 
87,  88,  39,  40 ;  p.  168,  ans.  54,  65,  57,  58j  59, 
60,  63,  64,  66. 
W.  R.  Gil^son,  witness,  p.  178,  ans.  16. 
A.  J.  Cain,  p.  226,  ans.  8,  9,  10,  11,  12. 
G.  W.  Shoemaker,  witness,  p.  252,  ans.  5,  6 ;  p. 

258,  ans.  27. 
A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  226,  ans.  7 ;  p.  234,  ans. 

28,  24,  25,  26 ;  p.  236,  ans.  85. 
G.  W.  Shoemaker,  witness,  p.  252,  ans.  4,  7;  p. 
258,  ans.  8,  9,  11,  12;  p.  257,  ans.  19. 
llotels  at. 

J.  W.  P.  Huntington,  witness,  p.  164,  ans.  24, 
25,  26,  27,  28. 
Landings  above. 

A.  J.  Cain,  witness,  p.  286,  ans.  36,  37. 
Trade  at. 

G.  W.  Shoemaker,  witness,  p.  253,  ans.  13;  p, 
254,  ans.  14,  15,  16 ;  p.  256,  ans.  22. 


